Help / The Help Forum

This thread has been closed by Flickr Staff.

Hot Topics

[Official Thread] Have an idea for Flickr? Share it here.
Latest: 2 hours ago
New Flickr Notifications Center and Settings available to all members.
Latest: 30 hours ago
[Updated April 26, 2021] Flickr is moving payments to Stripe
Latest: 10 months ago
Welcome to the Flickr Help Forum! Click here to get started and to read our Forum Guidelines.
Latest: 15 months ago

 

Current Discussion

Is this a bug in the Feed?
Latest: 8 minutes ago
Do we keep the RSS feed for activity/notifications?
Latest: 77 minutes ago
User links in notifications bug?
Latest: 81 minutes ago
ignore
Latest: 2 hours ago
Is it Flickr? Users? or Is it Me? - Views & Comments vastly reduced.
Latest: 4 hours ago
[BUG?] For a same Photograph, Numbers of shots dispalyed different between Pool Justifed and Squar view (Admin view)
Latest: 5 hours ago
forum for constructive feedback on new notifications
Latest: 8 hours ago
totally confused by sunset happenings
Latest: 9 hours ago
Thumbnail problem
Latest: 12 hours ago
[Acknowledged by Flickr Staff] Organizr still messing up album cover photos
Latest: 13 hours ago
Uploading
Latest: 13 hours ago
Can't follow flickr accounts?
Latest: 15 hours ago
More...

Search the Help Forum

Views count

Kaometet says:

Two views in 2.5 hours since upload, there seems to be something wrong with the views count.
Posted at 3:13AM, 30 June 2021 PDT ( permalink )

view photos

mcnod says:

Kaometet:

there seems to be something wrong with the views count.

We have seen this type of report before here in the forum. I just tried a trick I've used in the past to see if I could update your counter (soft faved the image - fav and then unfav). Your view count bumped up to 10. This doesn't mean that the counter will work any differently now, it does mean that there were views that had not yet been applied to the image.

Review this thread for staff input:

www.flickr.com/help/forum/72157718684716807/
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

mcnod says:

Kaometet:

something wrong

Just for fun I tried the same experiment on your June 29th image. It jumped from 196 to 219 views after I "soft faved" the image and then reloaded the page.
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Gray Lensman QX! says:

I use Groopy to monitor the views count in the Views groups. It often shows many more views than the Flickr image displays, but after a few minutes to Flickr page updates. Don't know why there'd be that lag, but there it is.
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Viejito says:

Gray Lensman QX!:

Don't know why there'd be that lag
Maybe because the Flickr code might “overheat” if every count of every single one of the billions of photos and other images were to be updated every second?
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Gray Lensman QX! says:

Viejito:

Probably, but while billions of operations per second may sound like a lot, it's not much to servers that can churn out a quadrillion ops per second (assuming Flickr runs on the latest servers).
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Gray Lensman QX! says:

And speaking of view counts, is anybody else seeing abnormally high view counts this week? My pics aren't that interesting to garner so many more eye tracks than usual.
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

albyn.davis says:

Gray Lensman QX!:

Just asking in case I'm missing something. Why the interest in view counts? I'm lucky if I get special attention (e.g., faves, etc.) for 5-10 percent of them. Cheers!
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Kaometet says:

My experience (since 2008, it happened before) is that there is -always- a problem with Flickr when this happens. That's why I came here.
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Kaometet says:

It still doesn't work right.
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Kaometet says:

I'm okay with it. Just to let you know.
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Gray Lensman QX! says:

It's an unbiased way to see how interesting your photos are. I don't usually take photos of scantily clad women, so my picss average about 300 views.

Recently I took a closeup photo of the nose art on a TBM Avenger bomber and it's scooting up the views (currently at 770 with a bullet). It's a scantily clad woman in a swimsuit (natch), so I'm confirming what I already knew about human nature.

Views are like science, you shouldn't argue with them.
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

albyn.davis says:

Gray Lensman QX!:

Thanks for your respectful reply. I feel compelled to say, however, that I have posted over 2,000 photos, none with scantily clad women, and most with thousands of views. So, I think your opinion about the photography world is a bit overdrawn. Science depends on the size of your sample.

P.S. Just out of the shower:
Your comparison of the nose picture to others does tell me that views can mean something, however distressful. I've been educated.
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )
albyn.davis edited this topic 3 months ago.

view photos

mcnod says:

Gray Lensman QX!:

so my picss average about 300 views.

602 photos, 72k views, equals 119 views/photo ...
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

kiwirat says:

It takes me a week to get 2.5 views.....
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Gray Lensman QX! says:

albyn.davis:

Well, there's no mystery in why your pics have a lot of views, they're more interesting than mine. Science!
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Gray Lensman QX! says:

mcnod:

Wow! You actually did the math. Thank Cthulhu for weasel words like "about".
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

mag3737 says:

Gray Lensman QX!:
albyn.davis:

"Interestingness" may have an impact on views; that's not a debate I would welcome. But in this case I guarantee you any impact it has is FAR outweighed by the impact from adding your photos to many dozens of groups.
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Gray Lensman QX! says:

mag3737:

Views groups only let you have an image in one group at a time. So you’re mistaken about that.
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

mcnod says:

Gray Lensman QX!:

You actually did the math

Longhand division. I try to stay in practice for when the plug gets pulled on all this technology. Spent some time in your albums today :-)

___

Current situation with the OP's photo - 87 views and 6 favs ;-)
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

mcnod says:

Gray Lensman QX!:

Views groups only let you have an image in one group at a time

I think that is his point. You are in a small number of groups and the other member has every photo in dozens of groups and that is the real reason for the difference in the numbers.
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Gray Lensman QX! says:

mcnod:

Oh, thanks to both of you for pointing that out.
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Nionyn_ says:

Gray Lensman QX!:

It's an unbiased way to see how interesting your photos are.

Actually, it's not. In fact it's nothing of the kind. Sorry.
Or, at least, the number of views on any given photo is not a reliable way of knowing how much interest there is in that particular photo.

There was a time when a registered view signified that someone had opened a photo's page.
However, that is no longer the case. Not even close.

Now, a "view" as counted by Flickr does not necessarily mean that anyone looked at a photo. It doesn't even mean that anyone consciously 'saw' the photo.
It certainly doesn't mean that the photo's page was opened.
It does not, in fact, even mean that the photo appeared on someone's screen.

For example, if someone does a search, and a photo appears in that search's results, the searcher might very well scroll very quickly through the returned photos, but only stop to look at one or two out of many hundreds or even thousands.
Yet every single photo they scroll past will register a view.

Also, if someone scrolls through a photostream, search result, album or whatever, a view will be recorded on every one of those photos.
In fact, a view will be recorded just before a photo actually appears on the viewer's device (so the viewer will not even necessarily have seen a single pixel of the photo).

All of the above has been confirmed by Flickr staff here in the Help Forum.

Views are like science, you shouldn't argue with them.
Maybe, but to interpret them in any meaningful or even remotely accurate way you have to understand the 'science'.
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )
Nionyn_ edited this topic 3 months ago.

view photos

MabelAmber️***Pluto5339***MysteryGuest says:

Nionyn_:

All of the above has been confirmed by Flickr staff here in the Help Forum.

Indeed.

www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/72157634613602844/

Quote:

" Staff Update, 9 Sept 2013:
Sorry that this took so long. We now count views on all photos that appear in your browser viewport on the Signed-in Homepage Activity Feed, the Photostream page, Set pages, and Search Result pages (these pages, along with the photo page, which is already counting views, represent about 80% of the page views on the site). For the Justified pages on that list, we may count photos slightly before they come into view. We hope this explains the increase in views over the past couple of weeks."


[My bold]
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

mcnod says:

If we have learned anything from this thread:
www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/72157719322016647/#reply7...
we have learned that the way flickr used to work be may not be the way it works now. Quote old staff updates, especially ones made before the switch to AWS, and you are at risk that the data contain within may no longer be valid to today's flickr.
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

mcnod says:

Getting back to the original post and the real purpose of this thread, returning to the OP's main concern and away from the tangent discussions:

I checked the photo in question once again this morning. It stood at 108 views and 6 favs. So 19 views were added since I checked 8 hours ago. I then repeated my "soft fav" experiment, I faved the photo and then unfaved it (sorry Kaometet, I cannot leave it in my favs, I am only testing an idea here). After adding the fav and then refreshing the page the views number jumped to 125 views. So it seems that 19 views were added in the last 8 hours, but 17 view were not added to the count until the next fav was applied (my soft fav).
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

albyn.davis says:

Nionyn_:

Thanks for this information. More or less what I thought and why I still don't pay much attention to number of views. This thread is an exception.
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )
albyn.davis edited this topic 3 months ago.

view photos

albyn.davis says:

Gray Lensman QX!:

Thanks, but a later post by Nionyn explains what views means. Best wishes...
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Gray Lensman QX! says:

Nionyn_:

Sigh. You might do well to take your own advice.

When I talk about views, I mean the View Groups (25 Views, 1250 Views, 2000 Views, to name a few). So when I get a view in those groups it's likely that someone looked at the image.

Case in point, the nose art image of a gal in a bikini: it's moving up in views because people are clicking to look at it closer. Same goes for my less interesting images.
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

John Frattura says:

mcnod:

I just tried the same thing. I faved (and then unfaved) the op's most recent public upload. It was 162, then immediately jumped to 170.
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Nionyn_ says:

Gray Lensman QX!:

Sigh. You might do well to take your own advice.

Sorry, but I have no idea what you mean.
I haven't given you or anyone else any advice. I've merely repeated in different words what a Staff Member had explained about the way views are/were counted.
Maybe you're confusing me with someone else.

When I talk about views, I mean the View Groups...
But only you mentioned those kinds of groups. That is not what the thread is about.

So when I get a view in those groups it's likely that someone looked at the image.
Yes, it is likely - but not guaranteed. Also, you have no way of being certain that a particular registered view on a given photo was from someone looking at that group.

And in any case, what you had originally said was that It's an unbiased way to see how interesting your photos are.
I have explained that you are making interpretations that you cannot be sure of about a bunch of numbers that you don't know how they were calculated.
Also, and given the groups you favour, there is no good reason for interpreting a view as someone finding a photo 'interesting'. Or, even if a photo were thought 'interesting' by a person you have no way of knowing from mere view counts why they considered it interesting.
For example, I open some photos (registering a view) because I can't believe how utterly terrible they look in thumbnail.
:-)
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Gray Lensman QX! says:

Nionyn_:

You mentioned that to interpret the results you have to understand the science or words to that effect.

And so I replied that you should take that advice. It helps to have all the facts before telling a guy he’s wrong with wrong on top and a side order of wrong. If you’d asked, I’d have told you about the views groups.

And I’ll leave it at that since the only reason I brought up views was to find out if anybody else was getting an abnormal number of them.
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Nionyn_ says:

Gray Lensman QX!:

You mentioned that to interpret the results you have to understand the science or words to that effect.

And so I replied that you should take that advice.

Thanks, I guess - but I do not try to "interpret the results".
I do not try to "interpret the results" because I know that they are largely meaningless - or, at least, not possible to interpret in any meaningful or accurate way since we do not have enough information.
Thanks again.
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

John Frattura says:

Gray Lensman QX!:

As for the photo of the plane, I'll bet if you had stats, you'd see some searches primarily for 3 words: bikini, nude and wife. No, I'm not trying to sell you on purchasing a pro account, because even with stats, it's hard to know for certain where the "views" are coming from. But without stats, it's even more of a guess.
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

mcnod says:

John Frattura:

I just tried the same thing. I faved (and then unfaved) the op's most recent public upload. It was 162, then immediately jumped to 170.

I tried a couple of other experiments. On day one I also soft faved the OP's June 9th photo it jumped 6 views upon refresh. The OP's June 10th photo jumped 4 views. Yesterday I also tested the OP's June 1st photo, it did not change at all, I noted that my photostream view and not even my own photo page view was added.

The idea I was attempting to test was "Is any money being left on the table?" The results are inconclusive, but it is interesting that two two week old images did have a few uncounted views. We cannot know how long the views were "trapped", they may well have been (largely) my own photopage photostream views from earlier on the first day of testing.
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )
mcnod edited this topic 3 months ago.

view photos

iiijanaiii resident says:

I didn't see you posted the subject, so I did too, I am having the same issue, they are not 2, but they are lower than usually...I used to get around 1500 per 2 days, now it needs double. time or even more. Also weird thing one of my photos has over 24k views, which is not normal, coz the photo is nothing special...
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

spelio says:

Gray Lensman QX!:

My bookshelf had "Naked Came I" on it.. So I removed the word "Naked"

Recently I took a closeup photo of the nose art on a TBM Avenger bomber and it's scooting up the views (currently at 770 with a bullet).

I very often post in several Groups, then later post in Views Groups, the Views Groups all allow an image in multiple Groups... Just posted this, flic.kr/p/4wQcm9 to a 1000 Views Group. It was sitting in other Groups for years.... Over the past week it got 1 or 2 views every couple of days..
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )
spelio edited this topic 3 months ago.

view photos

spelio says:

Gray Lensman QX!:

This Photographer can get 1000s of views on an image in 6 Groups, with no title, no description, and no TAGS!!

flic.kr/p/28iHSfW
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

simonov says:

Nionyn_:

There was a time when a registered view signified that someone had opened a photo's page.

Before that, there was a time when there were no view statistics at all.

You know, the good old days.
Posted 2 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Nionyn_ says:

simonov:

Heh, true enough.

I have a feeling that Flickr was a happier place then on the whole, with people here for the community rather than depending on views for their dopamine hits and a mistaken source of feelings of self-worth.
Of course, the place probably made considerably less money for its owners at the time - but that wasn't what Flickr was about either, really.

As you say, the good old days. ;-)
Posted 2 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Viejito says:

Nionyn_:

depending on views for their dopamine hits
Indeed: even Explore did not blow up your views and faves in those days:
The first photo I ever uploaded to Flickr got explored, as I found out much later. Sixteen years later it still has fewer views and faves than an explored photo gets overnight these days!...
Posted 2 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Nionyn_ says:

Viejito:

Yep!

This nonsense of how views are counted these days does nobody any favours.
It seems to have been started with good intentions (well, possibly...), but seriously misguided.
Of course, it will never be changed back again to anything meaningful, so we're now stuck with views meaning nothing but being perceived by members desperate for attention and validation as being something important and worth complaining about if they get lower numbers than they are used to or think they 'deserve'.
Tragic, really, but a sign of the times.
:-(
Posted 2 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

simonov says:

Nionyn_:

I have a feeling that Flickr was a happier place then on the whole, with people here for the community rather than depending on views for their dopamine hits

I suspect more than a couple Flickrites regret the decision to implement statistics (if they are still with the company).
Posted 2 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

wildhareuk says:

spelio:

The fact that the user has amassed over 21,500 followers probably has a lot of influence over their view counts!
Posted 2 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Mike Watson's photos says:

So, to summarize, it seems the answer to the question what does views mean is that view counts are essentially meaningless.
Posted 2 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

sdttds says:

Nionyn_:

Or, when views go astray from the average, it's an early sign that Pandas are coming. Or some other pain-in-the-rea outage. And sure enough, the Pandas are here again.
Posted 2 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

sdttds says:

Ah... just a short panda rampage this time.
Posted 2 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Nionyn_ says:

sdttds:

Or, when views go astray from the average, it's an early sign that Pandas are coming. Or some other pain-in-the-rea outage. And sure enough, the Pandas are here again.

This thread was started a week ago.
So what you're saying is that if a few people's view stats are not updated as quickly as they'd like, then a week later there will be pandas or some other unrelated problem on Flickr.

Isn't science wonderful!
;-)
Posted 2 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Viejito says:

Nionyn_:

Isn't science wonderful!
Fabulous!
Posted 2 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

John Oram says:

On a related subject, we are seeing stats drift again. 0822BST, pictures recorded on banner 31735 but in stats 31730. How difficult can it be to count?
Posted 2 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Viejito says:

John Oram:

How difficult can it be to count?
It is not a matter of counting, but of continuously updating an innumerable set of numbers on a gazillion servers.

This discussion reminds me of the classical children’s question, “Are we there yet?”
Posted 2 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Flickr Staff

Melanie0426 says:

Hi, all,

Thanks to everyone for contributing and to and for troubleshooting.

As mentioned here view counts are not updated immediately. This is why you might temporarily see a different number reflecting on the photo page as opposed to the stats page. With a bit of time, it will automatically be brought back into sync.

As the OP’s question has been answered, I am now closing this thread.

Thanks!
Posted 2 months ago. ( permalink )

This thread has been closed by Flickr Staff.

Subscribe to a feed of stuff on this page... Feed – Subscribe to help discussion threads