kyrielle: A close-up of a white, five-petaled flower on a dark background (flower)
Laura ([personal profile] kyrielle) wrote2005-03-09 07:07 am
Entry tags:

Amused now....

Will probably switch photo hosting to flickr. Several people I know use it and have pointed me at it, and each time the lack of feeds has sent me away again because I find them terribly convenient.

They have them. They just don't mention them in their FAQ, where I'd expect at least a yes-or-no question about it. Apparently you're just supposed to notice them on pages that have photos on, but on pages that have photos on, I'm not looking for them; I'm looking at the photos. When I created an account and looked at my account settings, there was no sign that I saw of anything related ... because I hadn't uploaded a photo yet, apparently.

Nothing like having a feature and not documenting it in obvious places. Or maybe I just only look in inobvious places...like FAQs. Obviously I didn't look in the right place here. In any case, I sent them an email suggesting they add them and they replied back suggesting I look at the bottom right of "nearly every page". Of course, the first six pages I tried had nothing since it only appears when there are photos (and my photo page didn't have any). However, having been told it was there, I finally made my way to someone else's photo page and saw it; and I did then also manage to find it in the "getting the most out of" part of the help page (but not the FAQ).

I will probably switch. Impressed with them technically as they have the two elements I've wanted and a cleaner look. Not impressed with their communications skills, from the "it's obvious you idiot" vibes of the email (when in fact it turned out it wasn't entirely obvious, even though I can sometimes be oblivious) to the complete lack of a mention in their FAQ. Having a spiffy feature is even neater if it's listed where people might find it. (It's also not on the page comparing free to paid accounts - it's available to both, it looks like - where I also did check.)

It's now in their 'tour' of the site, so I'm thinking it may be newer, because the last time I looked (months back) I don't think it was. I must confess I didn't look this time.

Oh, well. I'll worry about it when I get home, but it seems likely.