I'm going go be writing a blog post this weekend about why I failed flickr when I worked there, and perhaps to put some semblance of structure about why Flickr hurts me in the gut every few months. When I worked there I believed in the mission deeper than I have ever believed in a job, and to be gone still hurts every now and then.
Is there a way to write an analysis of a company that you worked at without being mean to those still working there? Without being self-serving? Without just throwing blame around to the parent company? I'm gonna see.
In thinking about Flickr this week, I made a graph of photos uploaded/flickr employee. It provoked! It was taken personally, rightly, by flickr staff. Heather Champ said it was an asshole move. For this I apologize, and have taken this photo down. Grab me a beer and I'll tell you what I was trying to do.
More to come.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I did not call you an asshole. I said it was an asshole move. Those things are totally different.
ReplyDeleteDuly noted and corrected.
ReplyDeletesuch an American passive-agressive & repressed thing... "ah, yes, when i said "this is an asshole move" i was not saying you're an asshole".
ReplyDeleteyeah, sure.
not trying to bring up bad feelings between the two of you. Just interested by how the semantics and hidden meaning plays in written/spoken words - and how this is a common issue in the American culture.
"When I worked there I believed in the mission deeper than I have ever believed in a job, and to be gone still hurts"
ReplyDeleteYeah. That one. I appreciated the graph. I think it's fair to tell folks that they're on point to be worth adding to the legend.
Anonymous, not sure if this is Dunstan or not, but my comment that can no longer be seen as the image was either privatized or removed was very direct and not passive aggressive at all. If you want to be all squirrely and paint me out to be a passive aggressive bitch, then have at it. Otherwise, I'm not American.
ReplyDeleteKellan, Really? Pointing out people by name like that? There are a myriad of reasons why those numbers might look the way they do. Say, someone's been harassed by the community for doing their job to the point they make it all private?
It might be ok to let people know that they're generally on point in the aggregate, but to identify people by name and paint a big target on their backs? That hardly seems like the Flickr way.
The internet is a very different place now than it was back then.
Heather, everyone who matters knows the special cases, and while the analysis wasn't as sophisticated as it could have been (for example capturing the nuance of privacy settings which is one of the features that makes Flickr great and hasn't really been replicated anywhere else), it was directionally correct.
ReplyDeleteThis is a sad display of the internets.
ReplyDelete