Please list all Pentax cameras in Camera Finder. The K-3 was finally put in Camera Finder as a Pentax camera today. Now please add the rest of the missing cameras:

Q
Q10
Q7
Q-S1

The Q series was introduced in 2011 and has a large following and yet no Q series camera is in Camera Finder.

WG-1
WG-2
WG-3
WG-10
WG-20
WG-30

The WG series also began in 2011 but no WG camera is listed

645D
645z

The 645 series represents the only affordable medium format cameras on the market and yet they are missing. The 645D was introduced in 2010.

All of these cameras have wide followings with thousands of images uploaded and yet they are not listed in camera finder. Please correct this.

I had to go and renew my Pro subscription today, but the email did not tell me how me how much the fee was. So I went to the site to try to figure it out. It took me 5-10 minutes to find the correct page, and then it didn't even display the fee. I had to click Edit to actually view the amount I was paying. I really don't understand why you guys keep making the interface harder and harder to use. I am TECH SUPPORT and I can generally navigate a website pretty quickly, because that's my job, and this is flummoxing me overall. I'm having doubts about whether I should have renewed or not.

Dear Flickr Team

hi

as you well know, there has been allot of discussion, criticism, and debate around Flickr's redesign and updates. First of all, regardless of the nature of such comments - that's a good thing, for it shows people still care and want to keep it up and running.
Of course nothing is perfect, or free of mistakes, but I just felt like saying thank you to all the people who thought, invented, coded and gave real care and devotion to making Flickr better, while keeping it from breaking apart along the way.

Just noticed the magnifying glass zoom feature - real cool and truly amazing :)

Thank You!

keep it up

Rotem

Even if I had a cell phone, I should not have to give it out to a company in order to use a service completely unrelated to the operation of said cell phone, regardless of your promises in your terms of service. I consider that personally identifying information that I will not provide. In fact, the amount of information that you request for a new account is quite ridiculous. I could not find a way to sign up without creating an entirely separate yahoo account. Why do I need one more account to keep up with? If your service is so good that I should switch, prove it to me. You've forgotten that you have competition out there and that you have to earn customer loyalty. As a potential user, I can say you have earned neither my trust nor my loyalty. If the requirements were to change, I would reconsider. Until that time, I will be deleting any accounts or services related to yahoo and finding alternative sites to meet my needs.

Recently Flickr has changed the way it delivers items when searching on a place name (such as a country or city). Instead of getting different sets of "relevant" and "interesting" results we are being offered that same set of images for each of those choices. Moreover these new results are neither interesting nor relevant in many cases. If this is a new search algorithm it is a very poor one.

The bizarre thing is if you simple place quotes around the term being searched the expected relevant and interesting results are available and they seem to meet the aim in both cases.

Here are the results for an interesting search on the term canada

https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=canada&details=1&sort=interestingness-desc

The relevant search returns the same reults.

https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=canada&details=1&sort=relevance

Yet when you use quotes you get two good results:
https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=%22canada%22&sort=interestingness-desc

https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=%22canada%22&sort=relevance

Please return to this latter format of two differing results... one for interesting and one for relevant.