Too much information here, Cowfish Billy ;-)) Some of us just want to see the photos, not play with new technology - RSS, livejournal, consolidation of feeds, interlinking websites - from what I can see and understand, none of that adds anything to the VIEWER'S experience of seeing a photo.
Shel > [Original Message] > From: Billy Abbott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Date: 1/9/2005 8:09:36 AM > Subject: Re: OT: Flickr vs. Photo.net-was: PAW: A Payphone in Parkdale > > I use flickr, but not as a general presentation site for all the > reasons you mention. However, it uses RSS to allow people to get feeds > of pictures for usage elsewhere - for example I use livejournal to > consolidate lots of websites i read on a daily basis (because I forget > to read them if they're not all in one place) as well as to inform me > of updates. I have a feed from flickr for my contacts' photos as well > as for any tags and fora i am interested in (I did look at every photo > marked with the tag London for a while until I saw so many pictures of > big ben that i almost started vomiting blood). > Some of the picture communities on flickr are quite lively as well - > but i think this an example of the difference between photo.net and > flickr. > > Photo.net seems to be a place to display pictures, flickr is a > community website that has its focus on pictures. Flickr also has a > focus on playing with new tech - such as the RSS, the tagging and the > picture annotations. It has it's place, but I agree that for people > who have slower machines or don't want the extra frills it's not going > to work.
