Flickr Restricting Accounts for Excessive Favoriting

Flickr Restricting Accounts for Excessive Faving

I was disappointed to learn yesterday that Flickr has begun restricting accounts for excessive favoriting despite the fact that their very own Help FAQ says that there is no limit on favoriting on the site. At least two prominent Flickr users yesterday both had their accounts restricted and locked out of Flickr because Flickr felt they were marking too many favorites in their favorite stream. Even though faving is not listed in the TOS or Community Guidelines Flickr sent notices which read:

“We’ve seen an unusual degree of activity from your account, including rapid favoriting of other members photos in a high enough manner to be considered an abuse of resources.

In joining Flickr, you agreed to abide by the Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. Specifically, you must not abuse, harass, threaten, impersonate or intimidate other Flickr member.”

The two accounts restricted are Billy Wilson’s and Diego Balinhas’ — both contacts of mine who I’ve enjoyed knowing personally and two of the most active members on Flickr who both contribute photos regularly to the site themselves.

So apparently now faving too many photos of another flickr members photos is now considered abuse? Personally speaking, I think this is a new low for Flickr’s already bad nanny state. Faving photographs should not be a crime. Users shouldn’t have to worry about liking too many photographs on the site. Personally speaking I’ve faved a ton of photos myself over the past five years. I fave photos because I like them and it’s a way to send a quick message to someone that I appreciate that specific image. Do I have to worry now if I spend a bunch of time faving photos on Flickr myself one day. Will my account be restricted next?

What about uploading too many photos? I’m trying to upload 1 million photos to flickr before I die. Is uploading too many photos going to be a violation of Flickr’s standards even though they say that uploads are unlimited?

Faving someone’s photo does not abuse, harass, threaten, impersonate or intimidate other members. And if it does, other members already have a block command that can prevent someone from faving their work.

I’m disappointed to see Flickr take this course of action. Like my own account, both have now been banned from Explore. They’ve also had their photos pulled from search and they can’t even make comments on other people’s photos anymore.

Be careful out there folks. It seems Big Brother will be watching how many photos you are faving going forward.

It should be noted that both of the suspended accounts claim to have been faving photos by hand and not using scripts or bots. There is a thread in the Help Forum (where I am still banned permanently, thanks Flickr!) on this matter here.

Update: In typical Flickr fashion they have shut down and locked the thread in the help forum complaining about this issue.

From Zack Sheppard at Flickr: “We can’t discuss individual accounts here in the forum but we are communicating directly with the people that aren’t able to fav. Since nothing useful can come out of the discussion here, I’m closing this topic down. “

Be Sociable, Share!
Loading Facebook Comments ...


  1. Wow, that’s crazy. I hope they sort this out soon, it seems silly to ban someone for favouring a few images,

  2. William Beem says:

    This is perhaps the most nonsensical thing Flickr has ever done. What is the possible harm to anyone for marking an image as a Favorite? Why would Flickr restrict an account as a FIRST action, particularly when the behavior isn’t restricted by the TOS?

    What kind of idiots are running Flickr? Sounds like a bunch of dumb Yahoos.

  3. Raoul says:

    I don’t know, TH. Quoting from this comment in the Flickr help forum:

    “499,000 pictures favourited in about 18 months? That’s an average (roughly) of one picture every two minutes, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.”

    Seems some scripts/computers might have been involved. Even if it wasn’t done by scripting, that’s a bit excessive.

    According to Flickr, I’ve had my account since December 2004, and I have 28,769 faves, and I thought I faved a lot of photos. I guess I haven’t been a busy-enough bee.

  4. Gary H says:

    Diego fav’d one of my photos recently and I felt abused and threatened. How dare he like a picture I posted publicly.

    Why suspend the account? Why not just send them a note saying that a fave every two minutes looks suspicious. Suspending the account is a bit heavy handed.

  5. Interesting – I’d like to see how this plays out over the next few days especially if there’s a script involved. 500,000 favs is a bit much but I wonder why Flickr thinks it’s SUCH a big deal.

  6. Brian says:

    While on an individual level, it might not matter if a random person favorites your photo, but it might be a big deal in Flickr’s eyes because there is a correlation between favoriting other people’s work and resultant traffic back to the favorit(ers’) photostream. An exceedingly large number of favorites could potentially game the interestingness/search algorithms.

    I know in my experience, if someone faves one of my photos (especially if they are not someone I’m familiar with) I will go check out their work and return the favor and, in most cases, fave quite a few of their photos if I end up liking what I see.

    I can’t assume what these users’ intent was in favoriting so many photos (at a rate of 263 and 717 favorites per day over the course of their Flickr memberships in comparison to Thomas’, whom I consider a prolific, albeit genuine based on his choices, favoriter) maybe they had the truest of intentions and have a lot of time on their hands. But is it unreasonable to assume that they might be doing this for another reason and we’re not hearing all of the story?

    The question is not whether Flickr has a right to interpret how such an action violates its TOS, they would probably be able to do in the vast majority of cases where accounts are restricted in some way. The question is in how they handle these cases which is clumsy at best and dismissive at worst. More open communication (before measures are taken, and afterward on why they were implemented) and less heavy-handed tactics would go a long way towards engendering some of the mistrust that has been accumulating.

  7. Brian says:

    Sorry I forgot to add Thomas’ favorite per day average in the post above. It’s 42.

  8. Rob says:

    ***What led me to his favorites in the first place***
    I had just added a pic and was adding a few tags and editing the description, refresh screen, pic had been added to his Favs already..
    That quick but from what I can tell his Fav Bot script is saving random pictures from the “Most recent photos” upload page to his favs at a rate of 800 – 1000 pics a hour…

    Looking at his profile near the bottom at his View STATS Aug 12th , his view count just started climbing on the 26th of July… 25th nearly none– 26th over 4000

    Wed. Aug 4th 2010 12:28PM 321,000 Favorites
    Now Jump to Tues Aug 10th 2010 1:30 AM
    422,550 Favorites do you see the problem here???
    495,305 Favorites as of yesterday Aug 12th 2010
    174,000 Favorites in 8 days

    Also just noted he removed his View Stats sometime since Thursday night???
    People were not talking about Faving 495,000 in 28 months were talking about saving this amount in 20 day or so

  9. Maarten says:

    I can only wholeheartedly agree with Robert Owens on this one: there must be scripts involved, so a ban/warning is in place here. Recently a photo of mine (not particularly good, but not bad as well) was favorited by Diego (of whom I had never heard before) _the immediate instant_ I had finished uploading it. When I checked out his profile to see what had made him want to fave my photo, I could see no consistency in his favorites whatsoever; not in quality, nor in subject. The only reason I can think of, why one wants to favorite so many pictures is to generate traffic to ones own photostream and that can be considered to be spam of some sort. I think Flickr was right in suspending Diego’s account for that reason.

  10. The flickr has the option of viewing photos to your friends only or private.
    From the moment the photo is sent “public” to flickr, is subject to comments, notes and bookmarks!
    I always liked bookmarking, only public photos!
    There are people who spread violence, pornography and so many other worse things on flickr, but your account is active and not SUSPENDED like mine.

  11. Clearlight says:

    I still have the Waaambulance standing by for anyone feeling threatened by having an imaged faved.

  12. Thomas Hawk says:

    I always loved my daily visits from Diego and Billy Wilson. Billy Wilson and I have become good friends and have shared emails back and forth for a while now. Some people will use flickr excessively. Certainly both my own number of faves and my 43,000+ images point to my own excessive use of Flickr. I think this is legitimate and valid however.

    There is no harm in people excessively faving. There are so many worse things Flickr could and should be worrying about. Micromanaging the community to hold to their philosophy of “community shaping” is harmful to the overall health of the community and creates ill will and animosity. Blacklisting people from Explore, restricting accounts, NIPSA, censorship, all of these things are negative for community.

    This is too bad.

  13. Rob says:

    174,000 Favorites in 8 days and You don’t see a problem there?
    This Diego had hardly no views before the 25th of July and suddenlly on the 26th he has over 4000 then 5000 then 6000, etc…
    AUTO FAV BOT means views if for no other reason except to check out who he is and you find he’s favoriting 800-1100 photos an hour…
    You favorite me
    I return the favorite and view your stuff
    leave a nice comment, etc, etc, etc….
    Now multiply that times 174,000 in 8 days and what do you get???
    10 pictures uploaded and 9 make Explore
    one picture everyday??

  14. Hey Rob

    Why are you so worried about my gallery?
    Would not it be better to take care of yours?

  15. favorite photos from other people is some kind of crime?
    Even more so when these photos are “public”?
    What does it interfere with the proper functioning of flickr?

  16. Mr. M says:

    I consider using scripts to fave a half million images spam and abuse of the service. The rationale behind running these scripts is to generate traffic for yourself without spending any effort at all on other people, so it’s selfish.

    Further, in a social community like Flickr, things like the faves buttong is a kind of currency, and abusing it with bots devalues the currency, so it’s a form of stealing. At the end of the day, if the bots are allowed to spread, faves will not only lose all value, they will acually become an annoyance. And the bots will not stopt at faves. There are already comment scripts in use.

    This will more or less kill Flickr’s main reason for being: the social aspect. So flick can and should stomp on these bats hard.

    (The gentlemen who claim they are making the faves by hand are liars. The scripts are well known, and William of Ockham sheds a tear when someone suggests they can favorite a photos every 2 seconds 24 hours a day for two weeks solid.)

  17. Brian says:

    The issue is if you want to see the best photography Flickr has to offer, gaming the system prevents other photographers from even getting a chance at that small slice of pie.

    Interestingness and relevance at some point become completely irrelevant forms of sorting if massive attempts at building traffic become widespread among a handful of folks who can/will employ those techniques at their disposal.

    The individual act of mass favoriting in and of itself does no harm to a flickr user per se, but legitimizing this kind of user behavior over a wide swath of users who choose to implement this strategy puts the serendipitous discovery of new photographers, photography via Flickr’s search algorithms at risk.

    Of course, it’s a slippery slope. Where do you you draw the line at what is acceptable vigorous dedicate self promotion, and what isn’t acceptable per the TOS. These are tough decisions to make, and I’m not saying that Flickr made this type of decision here, but sometimes you make a decision that benefits the good of the whole community (authentic, non-gamed, non-slanted search and as equitable as it can be shots at explore interestingness, etc.) at the expense of those who figure out the loopholes.

  18. Rob says:

    I’m not the only one Diego..
    Theres 5 or 6 Flickr groups discussing this topic as I write…
    It’s not the content of your pictures that is the issue.
    The problem lies within the way you munipulated the system to make Explore… You stated yourself that Flickr said you were SPAMMING Now add to that the fact that your favorites were updated at the extreme rate of 800-1000 pictures a hour
    You put yourself in the sites of Flickr management
    AUTO SPAM BOT along with AUTO FAV BOT = Suspending the account

  19. Rob says:

    A very good read…
    Translated to English it shows Exactly what can be done to the Flickr Explore Machine if you manipulate the Scripts
    11 Explore photos in 10 Days. Wow
    This sounds way to close to what we have here.. API SCRIPT ABUSE

  20. Thomas Hawk says:

    Of course, it’s a slippery slope. Where do you you draw the line at what is acceptable vigorous dedicate self promotion, and what isn’t acceptable per the TOS. These are tough decisions to make, and I’m not saying that Flickr made this type of decision here, but sometimes you make a decision that benefits the good of the whole community (authentic, non-gamed, non-slanted search and as equitable as it can be shots at explore interestingness, etc.) at the expense of those who figure out the loopholes.

    Brian, or they can just blacklist people from Explore like they’ve done to me.

  21. Dan says:

    I don’t agree. If someone who favs a lot since 2004 and can’t come a fraction of these numbers then flickr could easily see this as automated and and could be using excessive resources. Also 1 million photos is could also be exessive. WHY.

  22. Thomas Hawk says:

    Also 1 million photos is could also be exessive. WHY.

    What is wrong with publishing 1 million photos Dan. It’s my life’s goal.

    Why? To create and share art. Why do anything?

  23. Rob says:

    Billy’s Case… seems to be quite differant
    Billy has some very good Favorites and they do look to be hand chosen for whatever reason he merits them.. A mass collection? yes but over what period of time?
    Diego’s Case… Seems quite simple also
    Look at the facts.. Random Favorites collected in a very short period of time possible weeks.. Removed his Viewer Stats since last night?? 174,000 Favs in the last 8 Days..

    If the Flickr Explore machine, donkey, barrel of green monkeys, call it what you will is compromised then Flickr has 2 options:
    1. Remove Explore all together
    2. Remove the people who compromise the existance of Explore
    It is Flickrs machine also Flickrs choice.

  24. Steve says:

    SERIOUSLY, Anyone that thinks favouriting thousands of pics an hour is not up to something for a reason or simply taking the piss is a Retard.
    Nuff said

  25. Ulrich says:

    To be banned from Explore is aa privilege and a relief.

  26. Maarten says:

    Thomas, you keep hammering the fact that Flickr itself says that faving is unlimited, but that they suspend your account when you fave too much. I can see that is may seem a contradiction, but it is not the faving itself that is the problem here. It is the motivation why these people give out faves.

    Let me draw up an analogy here. In Western civilization you’re free to be as rich as you like; there is no limit to the amount of money you can possess. But when you become filthy rich overnight you obviously arouse suspicion. Of course there is the possibility that all that money came to you by winning the lottery, but it is more likely that the money has been obtained fraudulently. So if after investigation it turns out that you’ve been stealing, don’t be surprised that you’re punished in one way or the other.

    If you now replace “money” with “traffic to one´s Flickr photostream” it´s not that hard to see why Flickr suspends accounts of members who produce 174,000 favorites in 8 days time.

  27. jpr says:

    Thomas: “Brian, or they can just blacklist people from Explore like they’ve done to me.”

    Did somebody have a Waaambulance standing by?

    Nice to see the Explore Blacklist Myth stumble into this conversation, blubbing like a four year-old.

  28. jpr says:

    By the way, Flickr says that there is no limit to the number of favourites you can have. They haven’t gone against this. What they are objecting to is the rate at which those favourites are accumulated. When that rate exceeds what is humanly possible for someone looking at a picture, deciding they like it and marking it as a fave, then it’s obvious the system is being manipulated in some way.

  29. See you on the streets says:

    FFS Hawkie, are you that dumb that you can’t see its a bot. your close personal friend has spammed my friends comments and favs literally within 60 seconds of them upload pix.

    get a life.

  30. I noticed Mr Balinas favouriting me (Flickr name is Foreign Correspondences) a couple of days ago, within seconds of photographs being uploaded. With most of my pictures, I’ve thought about the shot. So when I saw that it was someone’s ‘favourite’, I was really happy that I’d taken something pleasing. Then as more and more pictures were favourited without Balinas having time to look at them, I became disappointed because it felt so mechanical.

    I don’t know why he’d do this with pictures he clearly hasn’t seen. It’s not against the rules or abusive, but it’s a little odd. If it is to drive traffic to his page, that’s selfish and rather mean. Meanwhile, I have no objection to people trying to post 1m pictures or any arbitrary number if they want, or favouriting a lot, as long as their artistic judgement is involved, which is doesn’t in Balinas’s case.

  31. Brian says:

    Brian, or they can just blacklist people from Explore like they’ve done to me.

    You do have a complicated relationship with Flickr indeed. That’s part of the heavy handedness I mentioned earlier.

  32. Shanghai 2007 says:

    This post is stupid. When do you start to think. You certyainly must be an American lawyer, looking so hard at the rules and not on the intention of the service Flickr provides.

    Get a life!


    P.S. Oh, and if you are do tired of Flickr, it’s up to you to leave. The majority thinks Flickr should be without fave and comment bots.

  33. Bonnie says:

    This is all a very interesting conversation. I can say that I was definitely ‘duped’ by Diego. I thought maybe he actually liked my photos because he favorited them so often of late. Duh! Now I know better. No biggie. In the end, it doesn’t matter. I do realize now that a computer program was ‘fav’ing’ my photos and not a person, but now that I know that, what does it matter? Not a thing. Flickr probably shouldn’t ban the account. I don’t agree with that. Even if it made Diego get more photos into Explore, who cares? Explore may be fun, perhaps it gives some good feeling and bragging rights, but it means nothing really. (Think about it, if someone is using a program to up his chances to get into Explore, it’s sorta like taking steroids to win a major sporting event . . . but with MUCH, MUCH less at stake! (no millions of dollars)) To me, Flickr is fun and a good social networking tool . .. that’s all. Trying to police everyone’s behavior is pointless. My guess is that 99% of Flickr users aren’t using programs to do anything like auto fav’ing . .. most people are probably using it legitimately and if there are a few who are not, if it is just about ‘fav’ing’ then who cares? Now if it is about being a total ‘sicko’ then I care. . . .

  34. NJS says:

    I’ve seen some pretty good stuff on in case you wanna leave flickr, Hawk.

    seriously, 15 faves per minute twenty-four-seven in a week + one day? that seems quite human.. NOT!

    you Hawk are a toss.

  35. Mark says:

    This is interesting because Diego favorited one of my images a week ago or so. It was a recent image and I was excited to have someone favorite one of my photos. It always means a lot to me. I believe i did go check out his stream but as of today I can’t remember any of them.
    Is this really an issue. I don’t even go to explore very often. So I had no idea that this kind of Bot stuff existed.
    Probably just means I’m not that high tech. Hey! My advice would be to laugh it off. Too much conversation can become a distraction and there’s a lot of photos to take and publish. So get back to work!

  36. Sidney says:

    Change is long overdue at Flickrland …

  37. Jason says:

    Next week will be joining too many groups!

  38. Silanov says:

    Dear Thomas,

    you’ll not know me yet, but I assure you that in regard to Diego you’re wrong.

    It can be proved that he faved 105.000 pictures in just five days and it’s simply impossible if you’d have to do all that by hand.

    He’d have had to fave 14,6 photos every single minute, 24 hours a day, assuming that he never left his flat and went to bed, the toilet or his kitchen to eat something.

    Please think about that again.

    Diego was definitely using a bot to fave pictures in huge amounts. No doubt about that!


  39. Jason says:

    So it sounds like Diego was using a script to pick favorites. Doesn’t Explore kind of work the same way?

    I find it ironic that Flickr tries to encourage “community” development by using carrots such as Explore. Hinting that the way to get your photos to appear in Explore is to be active on Flickr by posting comments and fav’ing other’s photos. All this because a super special algorithm is used to identify “interesting” photos. Since when does an algorithm know more about what is interesting than actual humans?

    To me, that only encourages people to comment and fave just for the sake of “being active” and not so much because they actually enjoy or care about the photos of others but just because they want to promote themselves. In the end, it seems Flickr themselves are really just interested in increasing the amount of time users spend on their site and less about developing a true community of photographers. Not much different than the motive for using a favorite bot.

    While it seems pretty clear Diego is guilty of using some kind of bot, I haven’t seen anyone mention any kind of incriminating stats against Billy. Yes, he has a lot of favorites, but his favorites are actually pretty good and there seems to be a reasoning behind his selections. The real crime is, a legitimate user being restricted/punished for alleged use of a scheme to attract traffic, a scheme very much like the one used by Flickr.

  40. The fact is to use bots or not, I said I did not use and ready!
    What interests me enough attention, is that in the FAQ flickr there is no point mentioning the maximum number of bookmarks or the frequency with which they are favorites.
    About Explore, the photos that go there are more that are well taken, but why are most popular.
    The 500 most interesting photos of the day has something to do with visual x x favorite comments throughout the day.
    If you put a picture of “black screen” and this photo has many views, many good comments and favorites, for sure later in the day the photo is in explore.
    I come here again, do not want to be your favorite photos, do not make them public.
    Flickr is a public space and democratic.
    Add photos just for yourself or your friends.
    From the moment that the photos are public, subject to comments, criticisms and favorites, yes, many favorites that are not prohibited by the Flickr team.
    Without any warning, suspended my account and it was great injustice.
    Maybe if the flickr FAQ had the explanation of the number of bookmarks or favorites often, nothing would have happened with me and other users.
    PRO religiously paid the bill to two years to have the account suspended without notice.
    I sent e-mail two days to make the contact that I stayed and got no response from the flickr staff.
    This is pure nonsense!
    Now excuse me, if you add a photo to flickr and do not want to comment, favorite or a preview, then put in the drawer of your home.

  41. jpr says:

    “The fact is to use bots or not, I said I did not use and ready!”

    Well, the evidence seems to suggest otherwise. However perhaps you could explain how you favourite 900 pictures every hour of the day for four days? Then we might believe you.

  42. Silanov says:

    “The fact is to use bots or not, I said I did not use and ready!”

    What you say is absolutely of no importance, Diego. Evidence already convicted you!

    And by keeping to deny that you only make a complete fool of yourself!

    Can’t you see that, dude?

    The first problem, which I have with you, is that people like you make faving an entirely meaningless business. And the second problem is that for everyone of your pictures which makes Explore by your gaming activities, a picture of a different user, who would have earned it much more to get there, doesn’t make it!

    How selfish, narcissistic, blind and extremly keen on attention for themselves must people be, when they’re obviously unable to think outside their own box? Blinded by all this attention, they managed to get by playing unfair!

  43. Silanov says:

    Just to add:

    You also lack any ability to self-reflect, self-criticize and take criticism. Why else did you delete every little critical comment on your red picture, which I thought, should have animated a critical exchange of ideas about your case?

    No, I was wrong about you again: You just wanted to collect as much backslapping and solace as possible – from all your contacts and buddies who have blinders on in regard to the hard facts. Criticism is neither welcome nor accepted.

  44. Silanov

    I pity you, who devotes much time and importance to talk about myself!
    Ie it should make sense for your life!
    Repressed, jealous and a lousy photographer!
    Good day!

  45. Silanov says:

    Well, I refuse to dumb down to this level. Not everyone can be as exceptionally gifted as you – of course not.

    Besides being insulting do you have anything else to say regarding the questions which some people here and on Flickr asked you?

    I repeat one: How do you manage to watch and fave 14.6 pictures a minute during a period of five days, 24 hours each day?

    Hm, you perhaps use the huge and extremly fast FBI computer and also engage some employees who assist you faving…

    Finally I want to add one quote of your first statement here which I’m really fond of:

    There are people who spread violence, pornography and so many other worse things on flickr, but your account is active and not SUSPENDED like mine.”

    It sounds a bit like:

    “Why are so many sex offenders in the world on the loose whilst I’m not even allowed to commit a simple unbloody bank robbery? How unjust is that?”

    PS: Please don’t lose your self-control again now. It just shows that you’re gradually becoming aware of fighting a losing battle. 🙂

  46. Peter Good says:

    “Repressed, jealous and a lousy photographer!”

    Diego, Yours can’t be very good if you have to resort to trickery to get people to come and look at them

    And, indeed, I’m right. They’re nothing special.

  47. Anonymous says:

    Looking at his profile at his “VIEWER STATS” on Aug 12th I saw, his view count just started climbing on the 26th of July…
    25th nearly none–
    26th over 4000
    27th 0ver 4000
    28th over 6000
    29th etc.. etc..
    If he’s not guilty then why did he removed his “VIEWER STATS” sometime since Aug 12th Thursday night??? Used to be right under his FLAG COUNTER Proof of when the Bot kicked in.. Maybe Yes
    You state yourself on July 12th That Flickr is preventing me from commenting saying I’m spamming. SPAM Bot.. Maybe Yes

    Again This sounds way to close to what we have here.. API SCRIPT ABUSE

  48. Bonnie says:

    To me, I wonder if Flickr should remove Explore anyway . . . it’s sort of silly and fosters strange competitiveness on a website that is primarily about social networking. I cannot understand why anyone would go through great lengths just to get in Explore. The groups and contacts are good enough. So you get a photo in Explore? Whoop-dee-doo! You’re not gonna get money, or a sale or anything else. And if you get a photo in there by gaming the system, then you have to live with that knowledge. Hey, I sometimes put photos in those award groups to get some comments because it’s nice to get them, but I know when I get an award it’s most likely just because my photo was just next to another person’s who was obligated to award and I may not take that one as seriously as someone who bothered to make a nice detailed comment or someone who I’ve gotten to know on Flickr through commenting back and forth, etc.

    We can all probably figure out what is going on with Diego or others who might use bots after a few times that a photo gets faved immediately upon upload, so you dismiss that ‘fave’ as not real and move on. Then go back to your ‘real’ friends and contacts on flickr or even in the ‘real’ world and be kind to each other–that’s what it’s all about. I sorta think the account should not have been suspended–a warning would’ve done nicely. Perhaps there is more potential harm that I think, but I have trouble thinking that cheating to get into Explore is a crime. Cannot Flickr figure out how to stop or disable the bots? (I’m not that technical so not sure what goes on there.)

  49. Bonnie says:

    Another thing, Diego, I don’t know you from Adam, but why not come clean . . . admit you were using the bot? I really want to believe that you weren’t but even I can see that you were. My guess, you were doing it as an experiment . . . to see what would happen and you probably don’t even see a problem with it, but Flickr obviously does. Stop using the bot and see what happens now . . . if everyone is like me, you probably have a lot of people who have already listed you as a contact. I have you as a contact and I think your photos are quite good. I also think Silanov’s photos are good too . . . so maybe, to you, I’m just another ‘a lousy photographer’ too (in any case calling me a ‘photographer’ even a lousy one is a giving me more credit than I deserve because I just take pictures; I’m not a photographer). If you admit it, even now, I for one, will forgive you. As far as I’m concerned, I’m keeping you as a contact–for now.

  50. Rob says:

    Thomas Hawk says:
    August 13, 2010 at 11:46 am
    I always loved my daily visits from Diego and Billy Wilson…

    He said that like Diego is a long time buddy or something
    when in fact it seems they might have just come in contact
    through Diegos FavBot….
    On Aug 4, 2010 he posted to a flickr group about said encounter:
    “i think I must be on his radar now.”

    Or maybe you were just a random fav like the other 494,712 pics,
    including myself…
    You sure are quick to defend this Diego fellow considering its so short of a relationship.. Or is it out of Hate for the Flickr Admin.
    Who so called Blacklisted you from EXPLORE

  51. andrew says:

    I started using flickr, but maybe i just don’t use it enough. I’m not too much of a fan tho… i would rather just have a place to post random pics and get feedback on a regular basis from REAL people not “badges” and crap that don’t actually serve to critique at all….. but i don’t really know of any.

  52. Alan Saunders says:

    andrew: “i would rather just have a place to post random pics and get feedback on a regular basis from REAL people not “badges” and crap that don’t actually serve to critique at all”

    I use Flickr for that 🙂

  53. I’m not sure why but this website is loading very slow for me. Is anyone else having this issue or is it a problem on my end? I’ll check back later and see if the problem still exists.