Flickr Etiquette

August 7, 2008 3:05 pm Permalink Personal. Comments


A large percentage of bloggers online use Flickr for their image and photography hosting. Flickr is more than just an image host, though. It supports the creation of groups, discussion, comments, and geolocation. While these features build community and comradery, many of them are misused.

All-Out Spam

No doubt, there are spammers that infiltrate and attempt to permeate any website with a medium to low level of traffic. (My site even gets hit pretty hard.) Spammers mass-produce accounts and post links in comments to draw immense amounts of traffic for ads. Firstly, don’t click on ads from websites that get spammed. You’re just giving the spammer more incentive to continue spamming. Secondly, don’t post links that are spammy or even look spammy. If your comment isn’t relevant, don’t post it.

Badges, Awards, and Group Invitation

Just by perusing through the Explore (popular) photos of Flickr, you will find many “Awards.” These usually consist of some awful animated GIF with glitter, sparkles, or seizure-causing color changes. Don’t post these on Flickr photo pages. They’re downright annoying and waste valuable space that could be filled with real content. Group invites should be saved for FlickrMail, the private messaging system on Flickr. Don’t waste my time and spam my photos with group invites that are usually irrelevant and self-promoting.

Self-Promotion

As a photographer, I enjoy admiring others’ works. However, I don’t enjoy having them shoved down my throat by posting high-resolution version in the comments of my photos. If you photo has some relevance to the discussion or to my photo, post a simple link to it. Don’t try to rob even 400+ pixels of vertical space in the comments section with a link to your photo (or photos). This Flickr page clearly shows how annoying all of the previous problems can be.

Notes

I’m under the impression that most Flickr users don’t understand how to use “Flickr Notes” properly. Most use them as a bulletin board to overlay their important irrelevant comments on top of photos. These notes should be used to draw attention to a certain area of the photograph and make a point, such as: suggesting a better crop, suggesting some modifications to be made in a certain area, or generally pointing out something in the photo. Here’s a mild example of note abuse.

To everyone who’s guilty of this: KNOCK IT OFF.

  • Real Networks has finally caught onto the DRM-free music trend. Mp3.Rhapsody.com now offers DRM-free mp3’s at higher quality than iTunes’ m4a. “We’re no longer competing with the iPod. We’re embracing it…” (Neil Smith, Vice President, RealNetworks). Looks like I can dump the iTunes Music Store completely now, except for the hard-to-find artists. I’ve been tired of having to use Requiem to strip DRM from my m4p files to convert them to m4a. (0)
  • I’ve just updated to the newest version of WP 2.5 - I know, I’m slow. The new version includes a freshly updated UI for the administration side of things. I’ve also installed the WordPress Automatic Upgrade plugin, which allows for backup of your files and database before automatically automagically updating your version of WordPress. (0)

Should Christians Take Oaths?

June 4, 2008 9:29 am Permalink Christianity, Personal. Comments

While reading a fellow Utah Christian’s blog, a thought crossed my mind. Allegiance to your country is often made with a strong statement, be it verbal, non-verbal, symbolic or otherwise. Some wave flags, hoist them on flagpoles, wear flags on their bodies. Others hold hands over their hearts, over their heads, and sing national anthems. While a lot of these statements are wholesome and good, what does the Bible say about taking an oath, like the Pledge of Allegiance? After doing some research and reading, I found that Jesus addressed oaths/pledges quite succinctly.

Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.’ But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
Matthew 5:33-37

While it’s possible that I may be reading this out of context, it seems as if Jesus addresses both honesty and oath-taking. His command? Don’t make them at all. This may be a bit of a shock to many Christians in the United States who are ever so patriotic and loyal to their country. If the wording Jesus used wasn’t enough to convince you or make you think about this a little bit differently, James also addresses the issue.

 Above all, my brothers, do not swear—not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. Let your “Yes” be yes, and your “No,” no, or you will be condemned.
James 5:12

The question remains - is it un-patriotic to not hold your hand over your heart or to sing the national anthem? The Bible doesn’t really address this issue. My take is that as long as you’re not making an oath, it’s okay. One of the biggest things people love about the United States is the freedom. Freedom to make whatever statement you want to make. Personally, I don’t recite the Pledge of Allegiance for the reasons above. Does that make me less patriotic? I should hope not. I love my country and have an immense amount of respect for those who have fought and died to defend what we believe is right - freedom. This is true patriotism in my heart. Patriotism is a difficult thing to define, as so many different people have views on it. My favorite quote regarding patriotism is the famous but apparently mis-attributed:

Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.

I’ll leave you with this quote from Adlai E. Stevenson on patriotism.

Patriotism is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime.
Adlai E. Stevenson

MediaDefender, Cyberterrorists

May 29, 2008 12:53 pm Permalink Computers & Technology, Security. Comments

Revision3Revision3, an online TV network recently found themselves under a SYN flood attack by a large network of servers. In this attack, Revision3 found that their main HTTP server, RSS server and e-mail server were all down. In tracing the attack, Revision3 determined that the attack was originating from an infamous cyberterrorist organization known as MediaDefender. MediaDefender is a company hired by the RIAA, MPAA, and other organizations to stop illegal distribution of copyrighted content. (I’m not even going to link to them in this post.) The question remains - why would MediaDefender attack a Revision3? They’re distributing their own content via BitTorrent to lower the load on their HTTP/FTP servers. BitTorrent uses distributed traffic to proliferate content, see the wikipedia article if you still don’t understand it. It turns out that MediaDefender has a sophisticated network of servers programmed into inject fake torrents or content into these servers so that once someone downloads this content, thinking it is a CD, some software, or a movie, MediaDefender has their IP address and other information that can be used in court. Sound like entrapment? Almost, but not quite. Revision3 began to notice non-Revision3 torrents being added to their public and open BitTorrent tracker (the server which coordinates BitTorrent downloads), removed them, and blocked MediaDefender’s access -triggering MediaDefender’s servers to attempt a different tactic to disrupt the BitTorrent traffic - a denial of service attack (DoS). By sending thousands of SYN packets (which are much like a brief “hi”) to Revision3’s servers, they effectively shut down Revision3’s internet distribution infastructure, as well as their corporate e-mail.

Here’s where the problem comes in. Revision3 doesn’t distribute illegal content at all. They were simply a distributor using a protocol and process that is just as easily legitimately used for legal content, despite the reputation of being an agent of illegal P2P. MediaDefender may not have targeted Revision3, but what they did is still illegal, under numerous US statutes. MediaDefender’s DoS approach to stopping or scaring P2P users is illegal. I seriously hope that they’re sued, in the name of internet justice. Their servers apply a “if I can’t have what I want, nobody will get it” approach not unlike a child’s temper tantrum. This child needs to be punished and grounded. I will not be surprised if these cyberterrorists are shut down by the FBI or by lawsuits from companies like Revision3.

Next entries »