An Analysis of Group Behaviour and Commenting on Flickr

A study submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Librarianship

THE UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD

Megan Amy Swart

September 2008

Acknowledgements

A huge thank you to everyone who supported me through the conduction of this research: specifically, to my tutor Dr Paul Clough for his encouragement, advice and enthusiasm, and to Ambrose, my family and friends – because of whom this summer of writing was much more bearable! Finally, a special thanks to all at the Sheffield Flickr group, I could not have done this without you.

Abstract

Background

The literature conducted previously on Flickr has emphasised the importance of collaborative tagging, however it has also highlighted an information gap focussing on other popular areas of usage on Flickr such as that of group dynamics and commenting behaviour.

Aims This research is an exploratory study of the commenting behaviour within the Sheffield group on Flickr. The aim is to investigate the different types of comments; specifically positive and negative comments that users leave on each others images and to examine the impact of using Flickr groups and such commenting on the photographic practice of the group members.

Methods This research employs a mixed-methodology, including a content analysis of 2 sets comments from 100 randomly selected photographs added to the Sheffield group on Flickr. An online questionnaire was also formulated and proposed to the group, of which a response rate of 26 different members was received. In addition, the Flickr API was used to collate data about the individual members of the group including the number of groups joined and the number of contacts they have.

Results Comments were found to be divisible into 5 separate categories; positive, negative, constructive, neutral and questions. In each group the largest proportion of comments were positive, whilst the fewest comments received were negative. Comments were also shown to have the potential to influence photographic behaviour, whilst more specific groups were found to be dedicated to the improvement of photographic practice outside of the Sheffield group.

Conclusion It is concluded that groups and comments can impact on the photographic practice of users, and that comments can be categorised into basic types. However further research into these III two areas is required to specifically investigate and gain a more comprehensive understanding of sub-categories for comments and the formal impact of commenting in practice on users photographic behaviour.

Contents

1. Introduction...... 1 1.1 Subject of Investigation ...... 1 1.2 Aims and Objectives...... 2 1.2.1 Research Objectives...... 3 1.2.2 Research Questions...... 3 1.3 Methodology and Methods Overview...... 3 1.4 Dissertation Structure ...... 4

2. Flickr: An Overview...... 6 2.1 Flickr...... 6 2.1.1 Joining Flickr...... 6 2.2 Commenting on Flickr...... 7 2.3 Flickr Groups...... 8 2.4 'Sheffield group'...... 10

3. Literature Review...... 11 3.1 Traditional and Digital Photography...... 11 3.2 Web 2.0 and Flickr...... 14 3.3 Social Interaction on Flickr...... 17

4. Methodology...... 20 4.1 Methodological Strategies...... 20 4.2 Methods of Data Collections...... 21 4.2.1 Literature Review...... 21 4.2.2 Comments Analysis...... 22 4.2.3 Online Questionnaire...... 24 4.2.4 Interviews...... 26 4.2.5 Flickr API...... 27

5. Findings and Discussion...... 28

5.1 Comments Analysis...... 28 5.1.1 To comment or not to comment...... 29 5.1.2 Different users and commenting...... 32 5.1.3 Positive, negative and constructive comments ...... 34 5.2 Online Questionnaire Analysis...... 37 5.2.1 Overview...... 37 5.2.2 Gender, Age, Length of time on Flickr and Photographer type...... 37 5.2.3 General usage of Flickr...... 40 5.2.4 Commenting on Flickr...... 44 5.2.5 Receiving comments...... 47 5.2.6 Flickr and photographic practice...... 50

6. Conclusions...... 52 6.1 Overall Conclusions...... 52 6.1.1 Commenting behaviour of the Sheffield Flickr group...... 53 6.1.2 Types of Commenting...... 53 6.1.3 Positive and Negative commenting...... 53 6.1.4 Comments on Flickr and the impact on photographic practice...... 53 6.2 Research Limitations...... 54 6.3 Further Research...... 55 6.4 Final Statements...... 56

7. Bibliography...... 58

8. Appendices...... 64 8.1 Comments Analysis Spreadsheet...... 64 8.1.1 Set 1...... 64 8.1.2 Set 2 (South Yorkshire tagged)...... 66 8.2 Online Questionnaire...... 68 8.3 Interview discussion areas...... 77 8.4 Flickr API...... 78

1. Introduction

1.1 Subject of Investigation

Flickr is a photograph and video hosting website owned by Yahoo! Incorporated. It was first launched in 2004 by a Canadian company Ludicorp, who used Flickr in conjunction with games development. Flickr in this case was initially used as a repository for pictures found on the web, however later shifted its focus to hosting images taken by the users themselves. Yahoo! took over the company in 2005, and since has increased in popularity to having over 40 million users visiting regularly per month and hosting over 2 billion public images on the site.

Flickr's mission statement proposes that their goals are twofold: firstly, that the aim of the website is to help people make their content available to the people who matter to them and secondly, to enable new ways of organizing photos and video (Flickr: 2008). Therefore, Flickr purports itself as an image sharing website that can be used for the management of photographs and other media. However, a significant proportion of the functions that enable Flickr users or 'Flickrites' to share the content of their photographs and images are social networking tools, including groups where users 'pool' their images related to a certain topic, 'favourite' and comment on images they discover and like or require further information about.

Flickr is regularly cited as one of the original Web 2.0 applications, specifically with regards to the tagging function that enables users to assign related key words to their photos to make it easier for other users find. Collaborative tagging is one aspect of the folksonomy phenomenon whereby the authority of a classification system is no longer one specific person or group but rather each individual selecting what they personally find to be the most useful or relevant tag for the item in question. Flickr largely encourages the development of such metadata, having been an early implementer of such a function alongside other websites such as Livejournal and Last.fm. However, Web 2.0 does not simply refer to tagging alone and incorporates the overall communication and networking of users as well; in other words human interaction using facilities on the web and the shift of authorship and personalisation of information that individuals share. Flickr has a number of additional social networking functions, ranging from the ability for members to 'favourite' images that they find and like, create 'notes' on their photos to highlight particular features they wish to bring to others attention, naming and describing their images, and commenting on their own and

1 others photos. In more recent times, Flickr has enabled a function of uploading photos directly from a mobile phone in addition to a host of different privacy settings to allow users to manipulate who can access their images. In comparison to other image hosting websites, such as Photobucket and Facebook, these features are individual to Flickr. The success of Flickr and its continual growth in popularity has increased research into the site, however this has largely focussed on the collaborative tagging and privacy concerns. There is therefore a research gap on the other elements such as commenting.

1.2 Aims and Objectives

The research for this dissertation is based upon previous investigations into Flickr as a social networking site in its own right, as well as on the need to investigate the comments left on photos, due to the majority of research focussing on the collaborative tagging feature that Flickr endorses. Flickr is of significant interest to researchers regarding its overall success as an online image management system, and by conducting this research I intend to provide an introduction to commenting as an area that requires further detailed study.

The overall aim of this dissertation therefore is to investigate user behaviour on Flickr; looking at the ways in which the users within the Sheffield group on Flickr communicate with each other using the comments function. The theory to test is whether Flickr can be considered comparable to that of a photographic club or society, in the sense that it can be used as a resource for members to improve their photographic ability: whether the members specifically use it for that purpose, or whether the ideas presented by other users via the commenting format help provide inspiration for photographs they take in the future.

By performing an in-depth case study of the commenting behaviour of the Sheffield group on Flickr and analysing these Flickr members interactions using this format, I am interested in whether the perception of simply positive or negative commenting impacts on what images a user chooses to make available and share with others, in addition to whether the commenting generally can be categorised. As a member of the Sheffield group, I have a familiarity with the workings of the group and believe myself to have a good grounding to explore the behaviour of the members.

1.2.1 Research Objectives

The central objectives in this exploratory investigation therefore are:

1. To provide an account for the different types of comments left by members of the Sheffield group on Flickr 2. To explore the impact that comments have on the photographs taken and/or uploaded by these Flickr users 3. To investigate the reasoning of the Flickr users over which types of comments have the most impact on their photographic skills and uploads 4. And to consider whether these types of comments can be categorised to provide a basic classification system that could be used to analyse comments further abroad to the Flickr website as a whole

1.2.2 Research questions

Research questions posed by this research thus include:

1. What are the different types of comments left by Flickr users? 2. What proportion of comments are positive and negative? 3. Do Flickr members use comments as a means for developing their photography skills?

1.3 Methodology and Methods Overview

The exploratory nature of this dissertation would benefit from a methodology employing both qualitative and quantitative data to extract results. Quantitative data is beneficial in order to visualise the actual behaviour of Flickr members, by tallying what is already out there and what the users are currently doing. A qualitative approach however will put this behaviour into context, by providing an explanation for the behaviour through the questioning of the users themselves. It is inductive, in so far as it will use the cases presented in the findings in order to form theoretical conclusions about what is happening and what could happen in the future.

To collect the data, the following methods were used:

 a comprehensive literature review covering research on Web 2.0, Flickr and similar social networking websites, amateur photography and the impact of digital cameras on photographic behaviour 3

 data sampling of two lots of 100 photos randomly selected and the comments analysed

 an online survey proposed to members of the Sheffield group on Flickr designed to question their commenting behaviour

 3 short informal and semi-structured interviews with members of the Sheffield group to expand on the results of the survey

 Flickr API scrapings in which data regarding each user of the Sheffield group was collated including date of first image uploaded, their number of contacts and the number of groups they had joined.

A comprehensive discussion of the methods used to devise this investigation is available in the later chapter entitled Methodology.

1.4 Dissertation Structure

Chapter Description 1. Introduction An introduction to the research topic, the aims and objectives of the research and brief description of the methodologies employed to carry it out 2. Overview of Flickr A summary of Flickr, how it is used, including screen shots to visualise the function of commenting 3. Literature Review A comprehensive outline of research relating to the project, to present gaps in this research area in addition to highlighting the progress made so far 4. Methodology A chapter exploring the methodologies employed to carry out the research, and reasons for carrying out the research in this particular way 5. Findings and Discussion The results are formally presented, with the discussion of the findings. First the comments analysis, followed by the results of the online questionnaire. Comments from the interviews are integrated with both sets of results in the discussions. 6. Conclusions and Recommendations Conclusions relating to the central objectives and aims are formulated and the limitations of the research discussed. Future investigations are suggested. 7. Bibliography A list (in alphabetical order) of all the literature used and referenced within my investigation

8. Appendices Supporting documentation for the results/findings, including the spreadsheet of comments analysis, the online questionnaire and responses and the Flickr API scrapings.

2. Flickr: An Overview

2.1 Flickr

2.1.1 Joining Flickr

Flickr is a photo and video hosting website, owned by Yahoo! Incorporated, boasting over 40 million monthly visitors and over 2 billion images stored (Arrington: 2007). The idea for Flickr developed from an online games start-up company Ludicorp which was abandoned by the creators when the popularity of an image hosting website proved a more fruitful investment. Yahoo! took over the company in 2004, moving the headquarters from Canada to the United States, witnessing an increase in traffic to the site of 448% (Graham: 2006).

To sign up to Flickr, all one has to do is create a Yahoo! Account. This will enable a free Flickr account which allows a maximum of 100MB of photos to be uploaded per calendar month. For a free account, Flickr limits the number of photos viewable on your account to 200. You may continue to add photos however as the number of photos you add increases over 200, the original photos that have been uploaded will be archived and will not be viewable by anyone, except yourself under the 'Archives' function. The photos are not deleted and if you upgrade to a Pro Account, they will automatically become visible again.

To get the benefit of all the functions that Flickr has to offer, upgrading to a Pro Account is recommended. The cost (correct of August 2008) is USD $24.95, roughly £12.50, for a years subscription. The subscription allows an unlimited amount of photographs to be added per month, permits you to create an unlimited number of photo sets (essentially online photo albums), provide statistics for activity on your account such as what search terms have been used to access images you have uploaded and an account free of advertisements. Despite these benefits, however, Flickr maintains that there will always be a free version of the site available for users that do not require all the add-ons.

Once a member of Flickr, a number of features are available to you. You can begin to tag your photos with key words that will allow other members to find your photos more easily. You can geo- tag your photographs by using a map to indicate where your image was taken. You can also

„favourite‟ photographs that you find and really like. This creates an archive that you and other members can access of all the photos that you have seen and chosen to „favourite‟. You can also add „notes‟ on to your own and others images to highlight a particular feature. In addition, you can begin to comment on other Flickr members photographs.

2.2 Commenting on Flickr

A key social networking feature of Flickr is the ability to upload an image on to Flickr and to allow other users to browse your „photostream‟, and comment on the photographs. Commenting can be on anything the Flickr member would like; for example a feature of the photograph, the type of camera used or a request to add a photograph to a Flickr group for which the image is relevant. Unless specified in the privacy settings, any member of Flickr can comment on the photos. Flickr highly recommends all users to enable the settings of their account to allow any user to comment. Under the default privacy settings, a user can select who can view their photostream, who can comment on their photos and who can add notes and tags to their photos. Comment restrictions include all your Flickr contacts, contacts listed at family and friends, or you only.

When comments are left that are inappropriate, these can be deleted by the poster of the comment or the photograph owner. Inappropriate comments should also be reported to Flickr, who will

7 endeavour to warn the abusive Flickr member, often termed a „Troll‟, or ban them from the website. Unfortunately, „trolls‟ can often return under the guise of a new Flickr ID.

When a new comment is added, a notification appears on your home page:

This takes you immediately to the image with the new comment. Additionally, the link next to the new comments link allows you to check what photos you have commented on recently, to see if there have been further responses to what was written.

2.3 Flickr Groups

Groups can be created on Flickr as a form of socially interacting and sharing photos with people that have similar interests. Groups on Flickr can be created by any member, they can be private - whereby members can only join via an invite, or public and therefore joined by any other Flickr member. Members with a free Flickr account can share any one photo between 10 groups, whilst Pro Account members can share one photo between up to 60 groups. There is no limit as to how many groups any Flickr member can join.

Flickr provides a recommendation each day of 'Groups they've recently noticed' to promote ideas and originality in photography. Flickr provides a search function to search groups either for images on a subject or for specific groups detailing a particular subject. In addition, Flickr provides a basic list of group guidelines to support those wishing to create a group or needing advice on dealing with certain issues, for example 'trolls' – users who deliberately attempt to offend, cause trouble and abuse other members.

When a group is set up on Flickr, the creator automatically becomes the administrator, which gives them the responsibility of setting up the rules for the group, moderating discussion posts, removing posts that are not appropriate or applicable to the group, remove or ban members and edit group information.

In order to add photos to a group, you need to already be a member, however once you have joined or accepted an invitation to join a group, adding photos is relatively simple.

Above each photo is a link that says 'send to group'.

By clicking on the 'send to group' link, a box with all the groups you are a member of appears. 9

Select the group you wish to send the photo to and the photo automatically appears in the group. Photographs added to a group that are on a Flickr members page and listed as private or viewable by contacts only will automatically become viewable by all members of the Flickr group.

2.4 'Sheffield Group'

The focus of this research will be based on the members of the Sheffield group on Flickr. This is to provide a snapshot of group behaviour and to provide a population sample that is manageable for the purposes of the investigation.

The Sheffield Group on Flickr has presently 837 members, and over 17,000 images added to the 'pool'. The discussion board has received over 950 posts, ranging on a variety of topics from local events to help with computer problems. The group is public and members can add up to 3 photos to the pool per day. Monitoring the group are 10 administrators who volunteered for the responsibility of ensuring all photographs shared are relevant, appropriate and the discussions on the message board are civil. A full list of the groups rules are available for new members, including the issues of banned members, inappropriate behaviour such as trolling the discussion board and more. The Sheffield group's primary aim is to bring together a collection of photographs and images to represent the area.

Features of the group include regular meets and weekly competitions where images of Sheffield are submitted on the discussion board relating to a particular topic, usually chosen by the winner the week before. Group members then vote on who they feel has best portrayed the theme. In addition, there are a number of sub-groups listed as recommendations for new members including Sheffield Black and White, Sheffield photographers and Sheffield Guess Where, all of which provide more specific discussions on particular Sheffield related ideas.

3. Literature Review

To gain a wider perspective of the context in which this research is being performed, it is necessary to understand not only Flickr as social networking website in relation to other Web 2.0 platforms, but also the concept of photography, and the impact of digital photography on creative and amateur photography. Flickr is not simply an image hosting website but also an online space in which to present photographs from a significantly broad spectrum of photographic ability or talent, and as such a comprehension of the history of photography helps to contextualise the research for this project.

3.1 Traditional and Digital Photography

The term photography is derived from the Greek word 'photos' meaning light and 'graphos' meaning writing (de Mare: 1970). Newhall (1982) argues that the beginnings of photography can be traced back to as far as the Renaissance through the construction of the principle of how a camera should work, that of -

'light entering a minute hole in the wall of a darkened room forms on the opposite wall an inverted image of what ever lies outside' (Newhall: 1982)

However, Gernsheim (1962) proffers that it was the end of the eighteenth century through the development of lithography that saw the concept of photography really move forward. For digital photography, it is as early as the eighties that the concept of computerised image management became conceivable. Coleman (1997) wrote the future of digital photography would soon be not just available for those aiming to digitise and preserve images but for everybody, and this has become the case. The popularity of photography can be assumed to its accessibility for everyone. Ruby (1981) deems this is because the visual domain in which photography lies is one where people can actively participate in all parts of photography – the personal creation of an image, the participation within an image and the appreciation of an image. Up until recent past, photography as a hobby has been relatively expensive, both financially and in time spent relating to it (Davies: 2006). Bode and Wombwell (1991) note that the new technology of digital photography is changing the dynamic of the nature of it through the shift from the chemical process involved with standard photography to the electronics of digital imagery. With the advent of the digital camera the

11 necessity to buy camera film, develop it, and wait in order to see the results is becoming obsolete; with digital cameras providing an image to evaluate instantly, and easily uploaded to a PC or laptop (Kirk et al: 2006). Furthermore, digital photography has revolutionised the size of collections stored on PCs; although the purpose for which photographs are taken may not have changed, the ability to review and store them with relative ease has shifted the concept of how they are used and manipulated, for example through the use of editing images to improve quality. (Kim and Zimmerman: 2006, Kirk et al: 2006). However, the advent of digital cameras is presenting problems for amateur photographers; Grinter (2005) argues that the new technologies available are disrupting the photographic conventions to judge photography and enhance collaborative activity as the definitions that were used prior to them regarding the management of an image from conception of an idea through to print is no longer the same.

In addition, the advent of mobile phone technology has increased the availability of digital cameras through newer and later models having a camera device built into the telephone. Van House (2007) notes that as a result there is a significant rise in photography focussing on personal life, with images of every day life produced as a form of remembrance for the self and friends. However, the breadth amongst different types of photography has led to divides between communities. Debates over whether photography is an art or a science continue to be observed, the primary issue being the distinction between the mechanical encapsulation of an image, and using that image to create something beautiful or as a form or art (Newhall: 1982). The Photographic Society of London stated their purpose when originally formed was to promote photography as science and art, an objective that is upheld today by the Royal Photographic Society (2008). Scharf (1990) indicates the work taken by a photographer to create an image is laborious enough in nature to be comparable to that of a painter. Gernsheim (1962) however argues that the debate is futile, suggesting it is whether photography is representative of artistic expression or not that is of importance, not the process in which is undergoes beforehand. Schwartz (1986) identified a significant shift of art photographers from the rest of their contemporaries, in terms of the conventions the photographers were using in their photographic practice. This is emphasised by Cox (2007) who highlighted that art photographers wished to distinguish themselves from amateur photographers, whereby amateur photographers of camera clubs incorporated conventions and features of 'pictorialism' when taking photographs. Griffin (1986) states that this pictorialism genre of photo taking is generally light hearted, whilst fine art photographers take the images they conceive much more seriously. Indeed, in the mid nineteenth century, the concept of pictorialism slowly took off, in which the photographers wishing to purport photographic images as art would carefully arrange the composition of an image by decreasing the how the photograph was technologically produced; in 12 other words the image would be more soft focus and less sharply recognisable as a photograph (Price and Wells: 1997).

An additional and significant use of the photograph was as a method of documentary, in so far as it could capture images and preserve moments in time. After the initial conception of print photography, artists used photographs as reference points for the paintings (Price and Wells: 2007). Furthermore the concept of both traditional analogue photography and then later digital photography as a means of storytelling and narrative is consistent in the analysis of photographic collections (Crabtree: 2004, Balabonovic, Chu and Wolff: 2000). Everyday analogue photography has often been considered to be primarily domestic; photographs are taken in order to portray a happy family and to document a narrative of their lives (Kim and Zimmerman: 2006), however; in the age of digital photography, this has progressed into a more varied platform with images not just of the family life but holidays, friends and more abstract subjects being incorporated into every day amateur photography (Frolich et al.:2002, Slater: 1999) The increased popularity of analogue cameras in the 1970s arose from the accessibility of exotic locations to the less wealthy through cheaper offers of excursions abroad (Freund: 1980). Similarly, the development of the Kodak instamatic camera in 1963 meant for amateur photographers the cost of the camera and ease of use was more readily available, and photography became more common place in a variety of settings. The development of camera phones has also introduced more creativity with photography; Van House (2007) found users were encouraged to increase their self-expression via the medium of mobile phone cameras and were increasingly being experimental with the images they took.

Means of being able to manage photographic collections is an area of much interest and continuing development. Coleman (1996) termed this management of digital collections 'image librarianship', in so far as photographs would need treatment in the same way as books; preserving, storage, retrieval and disseminating. Rodden and Wood (2003) found that in order to sort photographs, most people preferred to organise them into categories of 'good' or 'bad'. This however was found to be usually within the context of what the image had within it, as opposed to the quality and technical capabilities of the image. In addition, the actual organisation of such images is reliant on time, and particularly in the context of a busy family life, means that the ability to manage large collections of photographs can be left on the wayside (Frolich et al.: 2002)

For the development of photography skills, camera clubs and societies in addition to camera manuals are joined by amateur photographers. Photographic societies are groups of photographers with abilities ranging from the beginner to professional standards. The Sheffield Photographic 13

Society invites anyone with an interest in photography, photographer or not, to become a member and attend meetings (SPS: 2008). In addition, they put on meetings to enhance the skills of both digital photographers and those seeking to put on audio visual presentations of their work. Photographic Societies also regularly put on competitions and exhibitions to challenge the members photography skills (Edinburgh Photographic Society: 2008, Sheffield Photographic Society: 2008). Camera clubs also arrange events and outings for members to get together and share ideas and take pictures together (Glauber: 2007). The Royal Photographic society states its mission is to promote photography as both science and art (RPS: 2008). The education of photography in terms of the creation of, as well as the appreciation of images is key to their programme. Members are encouraged to work for the Society's distinctions, namely, Licentiateship, Associateship, and Fellowship, in order to have their practical abilities recognised officially and further afield. According to Schwartz however (1986), the primary user of photographic or camera clubs is that of the amateur photographer, of whom fine art photographers are attempting to distance themselves from. This distancing, she argues, is more a disconnection between art photography to that of science and commercial photography, and the concept of those who let the camera do the work. Cox (2007) argues that this distancing is also related to different cultural attitudes between those who consider themselves amateur or hobby photographers, to those who consider themselves art photographers – amateur photographers are assuming a certain type of photography values that subscribe to concepts of what looks good, and what has been seen before, in contrast to art photographers who prefer a more individual, personal take on the images they create. This link between amateur photographers and camera clubs to pictorialism is well connected to the social links and forming relationships between photographers within these clubs (Griffin: 1986). In addition, other groups such as The Magnums Photos co-operative for example, have an elite group of photographers that only admit new members to join after up to several years of their portfolios being scrutinised by current members (West: 2007).

3.2 Web 2.0 and Flickr

The development of social networking sites has become something of a phenomenon, and the movement of Flickr as a website used simply as a means to upload your photos and share the links to them with others through to an on-line community in its own right (Levy & Stone: 2006) is significant of the impact of Web 2.0 or 'Social Web' (Boulos & Wheeler: 2007). Web 2.0 is suggestive of a better version of the Web; a platform for regular people and businesses and academics alike to gather and share information and to control their own data, through mediums 14 such as blogs, wikis, RSS feeds, podcasts, social networking and bookmarking (Gordon-Murnane: 2006). Websites such as Amazon have been allowing this for years, with users invited to review items that they have bought and even review each others reviews in terms of usefulness (Fox: 2006). In addition to this, Web 2.0 incorporates the ability of users to control not just their own information on their own websites but also to participate in editing and tagging other sites and to add value to the social applications that they use when browsing the internet. Weiser (2000) explored differences in gender usage of the internet, concluding that the web was primarily used by males for entertainment, whilst females preferred the social networking and communication; key aspects to Web 2.0, that such sites have to offer. This finding is supported by Thelwall (2008) who found that females had more friends than males on social networking sites such as Myspace.

Linked to this is an important element of using such networking sites, that of identity. Merchant (2006) sees the social networking websites as creating new identities for the users; as a form of narrating the self through the forging of new relationships with other online users. This finding is supported by Van House (2007) who identifies four social uses of photographs for personal use, including that of self-expression, whereby images uploaded by a user reflect the individuals perspective and own creativity. Photographs published online can be viewed as a way of presenting not only an individual's photography skills, but also a snapshot of the life of the photographer themselves. However, the use of groups on Flickr is a way in which users can share their photos of their lives but also explore the world (Levy & Stone: 2006). The term 'Photo-tourism' has been coined due to the increased connections between users on networking sites maintaining contact through the mutual recognition of places in the world (Snavely et al: 2006). The increased use of geo-tagging means that specific locations can be searched for by users looking for images associated with the area (Kennedy et al: 2007). In addition, the multilingual availability of Web 2.0 applications such as Flickr and Wikipedia increases the ability to investigate a subject from a multitude of languages.

A particularly important element of Flickr is the use of 'folksonomies' (Vander Wal: 2005). Flickr uses these features in a similar means to other social networking sites to allow the users or 'Flickrites' to interact with each other, using features such as tags, comments, discussion boards, and groups. The importance of features such as tagging is the taxonomic control given to the user (Mathes: 2004). Chudnov et al (2005) indicates that the benefits of folksonomies and collaborative tagging as a method of meeting like-minded people is that it creates contact between people who do not know each other but seek similar information. However, the influence of others on how these 15 features have been used desires further investigation. Rafferty and Hidderley (2007) see the tagging features on Flickr as 'dialogic', a phrase derived from the theories of Bahktin, and therefore open to interpretation, as a result of the tags being created by the user and the uploader them self or other Flickr users clicking the tag to initiate social browsing (Lerman & Jones: 2006). The significance of tagging therefore is intrinsic to the personality of the user, and their perception of what is relevant in or about the photo when assigning tags. Within groups, the addition of a photo to the group has to be within certain guidelines proposed by the administrators (Flickr: 2008), usually related to a particular theme, topic, place etc. Yet, there is often a level of flexibility with the definition of what should and should not be shared. In addition, the inconsistency of tagging is problematic. Kennedy et al (2007) identifies there are regularly inaccuracies in tagging such as misspellings, or ambiguous connotations of the tag to the image. Macgregor and McCulloch (2006) support this, pointing out that at least with controlled vocabularies as used by author or expert-based indexes, homonyms and synonyms can be easily distinguished, as well as avoiding simple spelling mistakes Furthermore, in traditional cataloguing where there was deemed a relationship between a particular tag with another, often to give weighting to certain searches or to make some words synonymous; for example „vehicle‟ and „automobile‟, with folksonomies tags stand alone (Mathes: 2004).

Social browsing is another important element of Flickr. Arch (2007) makes the point that collaborative tagging helps uncover „grey literature‟, in other words, websites that regular search engines may not find doing a general search may be tagged or found via social bookmarking instead. Furthermore, Van Zwol (2007) identifies that the majority of 'hits' a new photo uploaded to Flickr receives occurs within the first few days of the image appearing on the site., suggesting it is via the social network of the user and the sharing of their images on groups that elicits the initial attention. The 'explore' function on Flickr generates recently uploaded photos that Flickr that are rated as having high levels of 'interestingness'. The way in which a photo is deemed as being 'interesting' has been a well-guarded secret, however Flickr (2008) state that it is based on the social networking functions such as the click-throughs in which a photo is discovered, how many times it has been favourited, and tags assigned to the photo. Although it is not possible to see who has been looking at a users photos, a Pro-account allows a user to view the statistics for their photos, including a break down of the number of times a photo has been viewed, which photos are labelled as 'interesting' and how their photos have been found (e.g. through a search engine such as Google, and the search terms used). The 'interestingness' function is a popular feature of Flickr, and would itself be interesting to investigate the level of influence this has on what photos users would choose to upload. Furthermore, Lerman and Jones (2007) identified that for the discovery of photographs

16 on Flickr, members were inclined to look at the contacts of Flickr members labelled as family and friends in order to browse.

The use of Web 2.0 to facilitate learning is regularly scrutinised. Liccardi et al. (2007) identify that the advantage of using social networking tools such as that of collaborative tagging provides additional methods of communication between users, in addition to regular functions such as email. This in turn supports and strengthens connections between users. Alexander (2006) sees the openess of Web 2.0 and the user as the foundation of content as critical to its success, particularly with regards to the finding of information in which to learn, of which Arch (2007) agrees, stating that the tagging of websites will facilitate students in their ease to retrieve relevant web resources for learning materials.

3.3 Social interaction on Flickr

Research into Flickr has primarily focussed on the previously mentioned functions – tagging and geo-tagging. However, a key feature of the social interaction that Flickr allows is through commenting. Commenting can provide forms of dialogue between users and often acts as a means of enquiry regarding an image (van House: 2007). However the commenting behaviour of Flickr users, with regards to research, is limited. A particular aspect of commenting on Flickr that would require investigation is that of positive and negative commenting. Kanis and Brinkman (200 ) identify a need for human computer interaction to encourage positive emotion, via specially designed user interfaces. In addition, there is a perceived hierarchy of power that development of social networks on the internet produces. Barsky and Purdon (2006) state the success of social networking websites, such as Facebook and Flickr, are as a result of the delineation of boundaries and development of relationships between users online, either to endorse friendships as well as to form communities. Anderson (2007) sees an argument regarding the privacy structure of such social networkings, in so far as the networks themselves, whether directly or indirectly doing so, create power hierarchies through individual members use of Web 2.0 tools. These in turn have the result of making 'strange effects and topologies at the micro and macro level that a billion internet users produce' (Anderson 2007: 2). In other words, as a result of joining and participating in social networks, certain power structures may be perceived to have been developed, including but not exclusively, the different levels of power between members. This could be in terms of popularity, or skill.

Davies (2007) identifies the motivation for the success and continuous use of Flickr through the 17 mutually exclusive link between the organisation of content and the social interaction on the site. She argues these are inextricably linked in so far as they sustain the activity on each element through the site. Flickr is an international, multilingual site that allows interaction between users of different countries and different languages. A reminder of this is via the home page in which a welcome message in a different language is presented to the user as a means of emphasising that Flickr is multilingual. However Artiles et al. (2007) found that users of Flickr are largely unwilling to translate searches into other languages and as a result regularly miss out on photos relevant to their search.

Negoescu and Gatica Perez (2008) identify groups on Flickr as a key means to deciphering behaviour of Flickr users and their social interaction, specifically finding that use of groups on Flickr is high amongst users and a significant proportion choosing to share their photos with these groups. It is through the pooling of the photos within these groups that subsequently rates the popularity of these photos in terms of the likelihood of them being accessed by other users, meaning the more the photos are shared with groups the higher the view count (Lerman and Jones: 2006, Van Zwol: 2007). This may seem obvious, however research has shown that the proportion of photographs shared on Flickr that are not tagged, labelled or identifiable by search methods requiring text surrounding the photos is significant enough to warrant alternative ways of searching (Rodden and Wood: 2003), for example through the development of Content Based Image-Retrieval (CBIR) algorithms (Kirk et al: 2006). Visual pattern recognitions are useful, in so far as photographs can be analysed for their content, often based on the colours associated, and using such a system, can search for photos containing similar images. However, these are often reliant on the colours alone, and as a result it does not produce consistent matches in terms of the content. For Flickr users, a method of seeking additional exposure for their photos would therefore be using groups to share their images with similarly-minded users. Relating to this, Blanchard and Horan (1998) concluded that virtual communities enhance the livelihood of their physical counterparts, which has implications for online communities such as Flickr and the geographical circles that the members live in. In addition, the types of groups that male and females are likely to join is slightly different; men are more like to join groups that are related to hobbies and technology, whilst women are more likely to join virtual communities that are supportive of, for example medical issues (Horrigan et al.: 2001). The types of photography that feature on Flickr varies, from typical holiday snaps through to the portfolios of professional photographer, and this features in many of the different types of group. However, Cox (2007) states that the concept of groups is much more aligned with that of hobbyist photographers, in so far as the shared pools of images within groups fits more with the work that amateur photographers within camera clubs would partake in. 18

Therefore it appears there may be a divide in users on Flickr itself, similar to that in society from the debates regarding photography as art or science, where amateur photographers are geared towards uploading and sharing on groups versus Flickr members who simply want to upload their images.

The behaviour of individual users as opposed to whole groups of Flickr have also been scrutinised, and Miller and Edwards (2007) argue that the Flickr online community can be divided between two types of photographer; Kodak culture and Snaprs. The distinction lies within the privacy boundaries users set up on their accounts; Snaprs desire the audience of the whole on-line community, whilst Kodak cultures favour high privacy settings with friends and families only permitted to view the photos. It would therefore be presumed Snaprs are more likely to join groups to share their photos. Thelwall (2008) adds that a particular feature of social networking sites, which in turn increases their popularity, is the ability to add contacts or friends that as a result gives these individuals access to these otherwise private materials. In addition, Ahern et al. (2007) argue that Flickr can be compared to social networking sites that have social networking as their primary marketing feature such as Facebook and Myspace due to the features such as adding contacts and sharing images, which in turn gives Flickr the same problems regarding privacy. However, although Flickr offers the ability to make images private, it openly endorses sharing rather than limiting access to photographs private. It follows therefore that Flickr is unlike other social networking sites in that it encourages images uploaded by users to be shared with everyone in order to actively allow individuals to interact with each other.

4. Methodology

This chapter will detail the methodological approaches and why they were chosen in order to conduct the research for this dissertation. The research consists of a mixture of qualitative and quantitative research methods, including content analysis by way of studying the comments on two selections of 100 photos, an online survey given to the Sheffield Group on Flickr and interviews with users from the Sheffield group to expand on the behaviour studied from the data samples and the survey. In addition, the Flickr API was utilised to extract information of the individuals who are a member of the Sheffield group, as a method of comparison to the data from the questionnaire. This section of the report details the theoretical frameworks for which qualitative and quantitative data selection methods were selected, in addition to the formats in which the data was analysed, the research sample, research limitations and ethics.

4.1 Methodological Strategies

Research strategies tend to be divided into two separate areas of consideration: that of the quantitative research design (the so-called 'deductive' approach) or qualitative research design ('inductive' approach). Both Bell (1999) and Gorard and Taylor (2004) however argue that such a linear approach to strategy seeking is prohibitive, in so far as it restricts the thinking process into choosing between two rigid categories. Bell puts forward the argument that most methodologies require a mixture, for example, the creation of a questionnaire may appear quantitative yet incorporate questions seeking qualitative data. In addition, an important point that Gorard and Taylor seek to make is that both systems are scientific, and that a choice of method should be based on the needs of the investigation rather than the personal preferences of the researcher. This is supported by Bell (1999), who proffers that the problem should not be which methodology to use, but that which questions the research proposal the most appropriately. Gorard and Taylor argue that in any case, both research methods require a degree of scientific analysis.

This research employs a mixed-methodology case study in order to obtain as much information and as in-depth a review of the research question. A case study is most appropriate for this project as it provides an opportunity to investigate a problem within a restricted time schedule such as a dissertation (Bell: 1999). As Bouma and Atkinson (1995) also point out, the case study can be considered in two ways – that with and that without a hypothesis. Case studies can be used as an

20 exploratory study of behaviour, for example, as a means of simply investigating what is happening in a particular social setting. Alternatively it can provide the means in which a hypothesis is tested using the parameters of the social setting selected. In the case of this research the former approach is primarily used, in order to explore the commenting behaviour that is occurring on Flickr. For a project the size of this one, it would not be practical to attempt to gain a sample of the entire population of Flickr. By focussing on the case of the Sheffield group on Flickr, this will allow me to look at a particular geographical population‟s behaviour, which in turn could be used as a basis for a later, large-scale project investigating commenting on Flickr.

Using a mixed-methodology also gives the opportunity to investigate both the behaviour that the Sheffield Flickr group is purporting, but also the reasons for why such behaviour is happening. This will give a much greater understanding of what is happening in the group. A survey or questionnaire used in conjunction with interviews and an analysed sample of comments will allow me to see the behaviour on going, let users themselves reflect on what their behaviour is, in addition to allowing them to explain why they think that behaviour is occurring.

4.2 Methods of Data Collection 4.2.1 Literature Review

Before carrying out the research, an understanding of the research done previously, the research problem and the key concerns of the topic area are necessary in the form of a literature review. As Bell (1999) notes, for a small scale project such as a dissertation project, although a complete overview of everything that has been written on a subject is unlikely to be possible, it is still necessary to provide evidence that a wide range of sources on the subject have been examined and understood. A literature review gathers a formal background of the research area. In the case of this, a number of different considerations needed to be explored. In addition to the scope already covered regarding Flickr, such as that of collaborative tagging and social networking, it was important to develop an understanding of technological advancements on photography. Flickr was originally designed as an image hosting website for users to share the pictures on the web that they discovered and wanted to share with others but has now become as well a photo management website for photographers, amateur and professional alike, to share their photographs. Understanding where photography has come from, as well as perceptions on what constitutes good photography is necessary to gain perspective on the different photographic backgrounds that Flickr users are likely

21 to have.

As the area in which I am researching covers a range of different issues – that of Flickr itself, social networking and Web 2.0, photographic practices and group behaviours, particular in relation to positive and negative behavioural practice - a number of different sources were used in order to obtain literature around these subjects. Research on Flickr is growing rapidly with a distinct interest in social networking and collaborative tagging as well as folksonomies. Online databases such as ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) and Emerald Management both contained a significant amount of documents relating to work on Flickr. The University of Sheffield library in addition to Sheffield Hallam library were useful sources for gaining literature on photography, and for online resources CSA Illumina was very helpful. Google Scholar picked up on a number of relevant sources too.

4.2.2 Comments Analysis

In conjunction with the questionnaire, a compilation of 2 sets of 100 photos that had been added to the Sheffield Flickr group were collected for the analysis of comments left. Through discussions with my supervisor, the first set of 100 photos was selected by incorporating all the images on the group and using a random number generator to select a photo. The photograph and comments, if any, were then recorded. The second set of 100 photos were selected by looking at the tag cloud generated for the Sheffield Flickr group, and selecting a popular tag; for this research project 'South Yorkshire' was chosen as it is one of the most popularly used tags, and a random number generator used to select the photo from the photos tagged with South Yorkshire.

This form of content analysis is appropriate for this research project as it allows the behaviour of users to be observed without intervention or participation by me as researcher. As a result, the influence of myself as researcher will not affect the interactions observed. However the analysis will not provide explanations for the behaviour, which in turn is why additional methodologies have been employed; both a questionnaire and interviews.

It is worth noting that the Sheffield group has currently over 17,000 images. Photographs submitted are not numbered, and therefore cannot be searched for using this method. In order to work out the photograph in the context of the photographs added to the group, I needed to calculate how many pages of photographs there were added to the group. Per page, Flickr will display 30 photographs. 22

First I had to calculate how many pages it would take to reach the number of the photograph I required. I then calculated where the number of the photograph, selected by the random generator, on the page displayed was by either counting up until the correct number was found or counting back.

For example: If image 147 was selected, the number of pages that would be needed to reach image 147 were calculated by multiplying 30 until it was reached. In this case, 5 x 30 reached image 150. The images were then counted backwards from the last photograph on the page until 147 was reached.

Image 147 When analysing the comments, a spreadsheet of features were noted. Firstly, the number of comments left by Flickr members on the image. Secondly, the number of comments that came from different users. Thirdly, the number of comments that were written by the author, i.e. a response to questions from other users or a description. Finally, the number of comments that were positive, negative, constructive, a question and neutral.

Having followed the Sheffield Flickr group for the past year and thus having an awareness of the

23 group and the commenting behaviour; or at least, individual members web personas and general discussing behaviour, this led to some assumptions that I could potentially make, which led to the recording of particular items when undergoing the analysis of the comments. For example, the use of emoticons such as smiley faces to indicate a friendly or inoffensive comment is something Flickr users regularly leave as part of comments or discussions. I recorded these where possible. In addition, a photograph on Flickr as mentioned previous can be added to up to 10 different groups if a Pro-account user, and 3 if a free user. As a result, a number of Flickr users have joined „awards‟ groups.

Flickr Group Awards A number of groups on Flickr have been formed as a way of gaining feedback (positive or negative) on photographs uploaded. Members can submit a photograph per day to these groups which provide „awards‟ given to you by other Flickr members if they like it. The proviso is normally that if you submit a photograph to that group to get feedback, you have to award another member. An example is the group „Hit, Miss or Maybe‟. By submitting a photograph to that group, another member has to comment using a html script which will show a picture that either says „Hit‟, „Miss‟ or „Maybe‟. More than one user can do this. In return, you have to use the html script to award another person. Often the Flickr member that awards your photo will explain their reasoning.

Due to the increase in the number of these groups, a significant proportion of members have had comments left on photos they shared with the Sheffield group on Flickr. These were also recorded as a way of measuring a positive or negative comment.

4.2.3 Online Questionnaire

The questionnaire relating to the use of Flickr by the Sheffield group was proposed online. As Flickr is a website, it would therefore be assumed that this was the most practical method of getting results, as opposed to asking for contact details and sending the questionnaire directly to them which has proven to be more time consuming (Miller and Dingwall: 1997). A questionnaire is suitable for this project also because it will allow an attempt to measure independent variables, such as age and gender, with dependent variables such as attitudes (Bouma and Atkinson: 1995).

The questionnaire consisted of 7 sections and 16 questions, including an optional first page featuring basic details such as age and gender in addition to photographic skills (i.e. Amateur, 24 professional etc) to provide a context for the responses given. The questions in the questionnaire were a mixture of quantitative and qualitative; closed and open-ended, asking for users perceptions on comments they receive and leave, in addition to asking their thoughts on the impact of comments, and using a scale to rate the relevance of the different social networking functions on Flickr. It was important to develop the online questionnaire in steps towards the final question, which was open-ended and required users to think and write about the impact that commenting could potentially have on their personal development as a photographer. This question would then be used to develop the questions for the later interviews. Therefore, the two sections prior to the last section were designed to get the users to think about their commenting experiences. These questions consisted of their perception of comments that could be construed as positive, negative or constructive, particularly focussing on what part of the image the comment had been relayed at.

Questionnaires have the benefit of gaining quantitative and qualitative data through the use of open- ended questions. In addition, they are relatively straight forward to construct online, and the most time consuming element is often the respondents filling it out. Questionnaires also allow a standardised approach in terms of questioning; each respondent will receive the same question worded identically. However, the limitations are that they still can only elicit a certain amount of data; if a respondent does not understand the question it can result in a failure to receive the right interpretation and response. In addition, interpretations of the question may differ between users. This could be prevented with a pilot questionnaire; unfortunately due to time constraints for this research it was not possible to do so.

When constructing the questionnaire, it was therefore necessary to consider that the responses would be from Flickr members with a broad range of photographic ability, in which case photographic/camera terminology or jargon used when querying the types of comments users had received needed to reflect relatively these different user's comprehension of the subject. Therefore, prior to publishing the questionnaire online, I consulted a Sheffield group Flickr user on his interpretations of the language used regarding photography and gained his approval. In addition, I examined the terminology used in a different questionnaire published by another Flickr member, which had received a positive response from the group. Although the questionnaire was covering a different topic unrelated to my research or the University of Sheffield, it was useful to consider the approach of someone else to the matter of Flickr and photography.

With regards to ethics, an explanation of the project and the rights of the participants was clearly stated before the beginning of the questionnaire. This included my contact details for questions and 25 problems, and stating the right of the users to ask me to withdraw their information at any time. Assumed consent was taken from the users choosing to continue the questionnaire after reading this information. Also prior to publishing the questionnaire online, I contacted the head administrator of the Sheffield group to ensure that I had permission to post it on the general discussion board. Although a relatively active member of the group, this was to ensure that the administrators were aware that research was ongoing, on the chance that group members complained for any reason about the construction or methodology of my questionnaire.

A link to my questionnaire was published on the Sheffield Flickr group discussion board on the 17th July. Over the course of 3 weeks, 35 members responded, of which 26 completed the questionnaire in full.

The questionnaire, including all anonymous responses, can be found in the Appendix.

4.2.4 Interviews

In order to get more depth regarding the responses to the online questionnaire, interviews were conducted in order to gain more insight on the commenting behaviour described in the questionnaire. Unfortunately due time constraints, only 3 interviews were carried out. Some comments from these have been included in the discussion as they brought in some interesting points regarding the reasons behind why comments were left, their perceptions of comments they have received and the ways in which they interpret such comments into their photographic practice. This in turn gives some additional depth to the findings in the questionnaire, and strengthens the discussion of the results.

From the questionnaire, 11 respondents stated they would be willing to participate in a telephone interview. After contacting each member individually, three semi-structured, informal interviews were arranged and were conducted on August 5th and 7th respectively. Details of the informal discussion are in the Appendix. Questions are listed with prompts to help elicit further information.

The interviews lasted between 24 minutes and 33 minutes. They were recorded onto my mobile phone with permission and a full explanation recited over the phone regarding the ethical responsibilities of the research. This included an emphasis on the anonymity of the data recorded,

26 the safety of the information when it was stored and the promise to remove any information or data the members did not want used.

4.2.5 Flickr API

The Flickr Application Programming Interface (API) has also been used to collate data about the Sheffield Flickr group. The Flickr API allows the collection of any type of data required regarding Flickr using a computer programming system. For this research, the API was used to collect information about each individual member that has joined the Flickr group. The information included the real name and location of each Flickr user when given, the number of groups joined as well as the Sheffield group, the number of images the member has uploaded onto Flickr and the date of the first image uploaded onto Flickr. In addition, it was possible to use this information to enquire the gender of the users. Due to time constraints, it was not possible to work out the gender for every single user; therefore this was systematically done by using the real names of the users that divulged this information on Flickr and the gender assumed from those. A further limitation is that the API was unable to extract information from every member, reaching 762 out of the 829 users of the group. However as this is not the primary source of data, it has been used like the responses to the interviews to discuss the findings that used the methodologies outlined in this chapter.

5. Findings and Discussion

This section explores the findings and data of the three elements that composed the research. Firstly, an analysis of the comments on the two samples of 100 photos taken from the Sheffield group on Flickr. Secondly, the results of the questionnaire are analysed, incorporating both the responses from the online questionnaire as well as comments raised from the interviews to expand on what was discovered from the survey. As the interview composed a minimal amount of data, findings have been integrated within the discussion of the questionnaire results to present a more comprehensive conclusion. This section investigates what the results mean, both in the context of the research itself for this project and the methodologies carried out to achieve the aims and objectives, in addition to looking at how it reflects on the previous research discussed in the literature review.

5.1 Comments analysis

The comments analysis endeavours to investigate the first two research questions stated in the first chapter, that of the different types of comments on Flickr and the positive and negative commenting behaviour.

The two sets of 100 photos were analysed for whether they had a comment or not, how many comments were left per photo, the number of different users that commented, and whether each comment was deemed positive, negative or constructive. For the positive, negative and constructive comments these were defined by:

Positive: the use of positive emoticons such as a smiley face or „winking‟ face - : ) or ; ) and variations of it, a group „award‟ and the language used within the comment. Particular phrases such as „nice shot‟ „good catch‟ etc are clearly significant of positive commenting. Exclamation marks could also identify excitement or emphasis in a comment.

Negative: Negative language, negative emoticons such as a sad face or „angry‟ face - : ( or >: (, and group awards that reflect a negative response e.g. 'Miss' from the group 'Hit, Miss or Maybe' .

Not all comments could be so clearly labelled however. For those that were considered to be giving

28 advice, a label of „Constructive‟ was used. Constructive: Any comments that focussed on how to improve the photo, such as technical features, the angle, mode setting of camera (ie night setting, cloudy etc) and cropping

However, as the analysis was conducted it also became clear there would be anomalies, whereby comments left were either a question and therefore were not purporting a positive, negative or constructive message. In addition, some comments were so ambiguous they were construed as neutral. Therefore, two additional categories of comment were created, that of the question and that of neutral, and were used when appropriate.

5.1.1 To comment or not to comment

Two sets of 100 photos were analysed. Set 1 contains a sample of 100 photos selected using a random number generator from all the photos added to the Sheffield Flickr group. Set 2 contains a sample of 100 photos selected from the photos added to the Sheffield Flickr group that had the tag „South Yorkshire‟ assigned to it.

The number of photos from each group that contained comments can be seen below:

Set 1: No. of images Set 2: No. of images with with comments/100 comments/100

55 61

65.00% 60.00% 55.00% 50.00% 45.00% 40.00% 35.00% 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00%

10.00%

with at least one comment) one least at with

Percentage (of photographs (of Percentage 5.00% 0.00% Row 3 Set 1/Set 2

Set 1, which contained the photographs selected from the Flickr group as a whole shows that over half of the comments from the sample contained at least 1 comment. Set 2 had almost two thirds of the photos containing comments. As set 2 involved the photographs that had been tagged with „South Yorkshire‟, it has the implication that by tagging images on Flickr the likelihood of someone finding your photograph and leaving a comment is higher than if you simply added the photo to a group. This finding does support the theory by Van Zowl (2007) that by tagging a photo it is increasing the possibility of your photo being found when searching on Flickr, which in turn has the potential of someone making a comment on your photo.

The following table details the descriptive statistics for each set of 100 photos: Statistic Set 1 (Total) Set 2 (South Yorkshire tagged) Mean 3.583236116 4.135131688 Median 1 1.5 Mode 0 0 Standard deviation 6.906847722 6.648300459 Range 51 35

As the results show, the commenting behaviour is relatively similar for both sets. As the table demonstrates, the mode is 0 for both sets of photos, representing the fact that the most common number of the photographs out of the 100 selected for both sets had no comments at all. However, the mode needs to be considered within the context; as 45 out of 100 photographs in Set 1 had at 30 least 1 comment, the statistic of mode can be discounted in terms of the probability of the photograph having a comment.

The mean for Set 1 and Set 2 are not too dissimilar, in addition to the standard deviation. Then mean for set 1 shows that on average, per image, there were 3 and a half comments whilst there were just over 4 comments left per image in Set 2. This suggests that commenting is relatively frequent amongst users on the Sheffield Flickr group as it indicates that there is a degree of commenting behaviour occurring. The mean for Set 2 was higher than Set 1. This would suggest that by tagging an image it will increase slightly the potential of someone retrieving the image when searching on Flickr, which in turn could lead to commenting behaviour. This in turn is supported by previous research (Lerman and Jones: 2006) which found tagging increased the probability of some one retrieving a photograph in a search.

However, the median for Set 2 is 50% higher than the median for Set 1, and the range shows a significant difference between the numbers of comments left per photo. Set 1 has a range of 51, whilst Set 2 has a much smaller range of 35. The literature review highlighted that tagging increases the ability to search for specific images and Set 2, which included the tag 'South Yorkshire', may have a greater set of comments as represented in the median due to users on Flickr specifically seeking out images related to South Yorkshire and looking for information, as opposed to socially browsing and leaving comments. The standard deviation for both sets of comments is very similar; there is a difference of 0.3 between the standard deviation of both groups. However the standard deviation for both sets is over 6, showing that the deviation from the mean is quite high, and that the variation in the number of comments can fluctuate significantly. This in turn suggests that commenting behaviour can be quite erratic. As the range has shown, the number of comments left can vary significantly, from 0 comments up to as much as 51 comments. A conclusion that can be formed is that commenting behaviour cannot necessarily be generalised; on average a certain number of comments may be left but this can vary between the photographs and members.

A particular factor that may influence this is the number of groups the photograph has been added to and the number of contacts a member has. The photograph with 51 comments, for example, was by the member 'Mikejilljessicatomlee'. According to the Flickr API, this member is a member of 508 groups and has 50 contacts. The image in question, as shown below, was added to two personal sets, to 13 groups and was tagged with 8 different items.

Groups added to

In comparison, many of the images with no comments or very few comments, were shown to have much fewer tags, and shared in fewer groups. Ultimately, this would support the literature revealing that the social browsing of contacts materials is how users find photographs (Lerman and Jones: 2006), and that tagging increases the probability of your image being retrieved. In addition, it also reveals that the number of groups an image is added to is likely to increase the number of comments received. This supports Van Zwol (2007) who noted the more groups an image was added to, the more view counts it received, which in turn could lead to commenting.

5.1.2 Different Users and Commenting

As the previous results have shown, images that contain a significantly high number of comments could have so many for several reasons: the image has been added to more than one group, or alternatively, there is a particular dialogue occurring between users. In order to study this, the number of different users commenting per image was recorded for comparative purposes. The hypothesis was that the greater the number of comments, the more likely there would be a dialogue between the author and the person commenting and/or the greater the number of groups the image

32 was shared with.

This table firstly shows the mean and median for both the total number of different users that commented on the photographs from each set, and then for the comments left by the authors of the image:

Set 1: Set 1: Set 2: Set 2: No. comments No. comments No. comments No. comments from all from authors from all from authors different users alone different users alone

Mean 2.86 0.91 3.18 0.96

Median 1 0 1 0

The average number of different people commenting per image was 2.86 for Set 1. Out of those, an average of 0.91 comments were from the author alone. This result suggests that 1 in 3 comments left on an image comes from the author. Similarly, the mean number of different people commenting on a photograph was just over 3 people at 3.18. An average of 0.96 of those comments were by the author of the photograph, producing a similar statistic to Set 1. The fact that these results are so alike suggests that tagging bears no meaning on how likely an author is to respond to the comments left on their images. The difference in the mean for the comments coming from the author in both sets is 0.05, showing this difference is very small and behaviour is similar within both sets. As Set 1 was a sample from a much larger collection of images than those tagged with South Yorkshire, it could suggest that these similar results may well be applicable to the rest of the Flickr group.

The following results provides a supportive view of this commenting behaviour. In Set 1, out of 361 comments left on all the photos selected, 91 were comments left by the author, just over 25%. In contrast, for Set 2, out of 411 comments on the 100 photos 96 of the comments left were by the author, or 23%. Both sets elicited very similar responses in terms of how the author comments on their own images. The results suggest that commenting is generally a form of behaviour for users to do to on other peoples images, as the numbers show for both sets only around 1 in 4 comments or less were left by the author.

5.1.3 Positive, Negative and Constructive Comments

In the tables below is the break down of results in terms of comment categories from the two different sets of comments. Regarding the commenting behaviour, a hypothesis was formed that, due to the nature of Flickr being that of a social networking website and a way for Sheffield users to meet and share similar images of the area, there would be a greater number of positive comments than negative comments. In addition, it was predicted that a significant proportion of comments would be neither positive or negative and instead would be questions as this would represent a form of enquiry for learning.

In Set 1, a total of 361 comments were left over the 100 photographs. In set 2, there were 411 comments left in total. The table details the breakdown of these comments into the different types that were categorised. Percentages are rounded up to the first decimal point.

Set 1 (of 361) Percentage % Set 2 (of 411) Percentage %

No. of Positive comments 266 73.7 305 74.2

No. of Negative comments 9 2.5 6 1.5

No. of Constructive 26 7.2 33 8.0 comments

No. of Questions 35 5.5 39 9.5

No. of Neutral comments 25 6.9 28 6.8

The following pie charts detail visually the differences between the types of comments in the two sets:

Set 1 - Demographic of Comments Neutral (25)

Questions (35)

Constructive (26)

Negative (9)

Positive (266)

Set 2 - Demographic of Comments Neutral (28)

Questions (41)

Constructive (33)

Negative (6)

Positive (305)

As both the table and the pie charts show, the greatest numbers of comments were those constituted as positive comments. Remarkably in both cases, nearly three quarters of the comments were positive, with a very small proportion (Set 1: 2.5%, Set 2: 1.5%) being negative. These results suggest that on the whole the users on Flickr have a significantly greater tendency to purport positive messages to other users when commenting on their images. This could be representative of particular Flickr group behaviour; members who join the group have the shared interest of Sheffield, and therefore positive comments regarding familiar sights from the area may be more expected. In addition, groups such as 'Awesome Shot Award' for example also encourage users to share their images and comment positively on other members photos. Although the number of such groups is unknown, it is worth considering that regularly posting on such groups may influence the commenting behaviour of the members that use them.

The following table details the number of images given group award comments.

Set Set 1 (of 361) % Set 2 (of 411) % Group awards 49 13.6 68 16.5

As the table shows, 13.6% of the comments left over all the photographs in Set 1 were 'group awards'. For Set 2 however, this is higher with a total of 16.5% of comments being group award. What this could suggest is that as Set 2 contained the South Yorkshire tags, users that tag are more likely to submit their images to more than one group and potentially to groups that give awards.

The number of questions asked per Set was much lower than expected, with only 5.5% of comments in Set 1 being questions whilst slightly higher for Set 2 at 9.5%. Again, the higher proportion of questions could be explained by the use of tagging the images with South Yorkshire in Set 2 as tagging does increase the possibility of an image being found and therefore being commented on. This would be because the user is specifically seeking images of South Yorkshire. In addition, the number of comments that were negative was lower in Set 2 (6) than Set 1 (9). The difference however is very small, and overall the number of negative comments that were left was a very small proportion of all comments.

5.2 Online Questionnaire analysis

The online questionnaire was designed to consider all of the research questions, with particular focus on the impact of commenting on photographic practice for the Sheffield Flickr group members, in addition to the reasoning behind the behaviour of the different types of comments explored in the comments analysis.

After the questionnaire was posted on the Sheffield group discussion board on Flickr, 35 Flickr members responded within 3 weeks.

Their results are as follows:

5.2.1 Overview

Out of the 35 users that responded to the questionnaire, 24 (68.6%) completed it in full; in other words, they took part in the questionnaire and completed each section until the end. This accounts for the questions that were considered optional, in addition to the question at the end asking users to leave their email address if they were willing to take part in the later interviews. The first section was completed in full by 33 members however this drops to 26 from the second section through to the end.

5.2.2 Section 1: Gender, Age, Length of time on Flickr and Photographer type

Gender

Of the respondents, 33 out of 35 revealed their gender. Male Female 22 11 66.7% 33.3%

As the table shows, two thirds of the respondents were male, whilst a third were female. This supports the studies revealing gender usage on social networking sites as highlighted in the literature review, whereby men are higher users of the social web than women. In fact, these results 37 in comparison to the previous research are surprising as Fallows (2005) highlighted a pattern of increased usage of women using the internet over several years, particularly regarding women and their use of mobile camera phones. However, the research relating to photographs shared on groups on Flickr suggests that photographs added to these groups are more likely to come from non-camera phones and professional cameras. Therefore this previous research may not be wholly relevant. In addition, using the Flickr API to analyse the male – female ratio of the Sheffield group, of whom it was possible to determine the gender of, there is a significant domination in male members (329) over women (103). Therefore the gender of the participants found using the API supports the findings of the questionnaire

Age

The questionnaire asked each respondent to state which age bracket they belonged to. 34 out of the 35 respondents completed this section. The results are in the table below:

Age bracket (years) Number Percentage (%) 18 and under 1 2.9 19-21 1 2.9 22-29 10 29.4 30-39 15 44.1 40-49 6 17.6 50 and over 1 2.9

The results show that the most significant number of users on the Sheffield Flickr group ranges between the ages of 20 and 40 years old inclusively. Very few members were under 18 or over 50. What these results suggest is that members of the Flickr group are likely to be of working age, and slightly above student age. This would suggest that Flickr as a social networking site has a higher age demographic than Myspace or Bebo which have shown to be primarily targeted at teenagers (Guardian: 2008).

Length of time using Flickr

Length of time on Flickr Number Percentage (%) New 0 0

Less than a month 0 0 1 – 6 months 0 0 6 months – 1 year 3 8.8 1 – 2 years 16 47.1 Over 2 years 15 44.1

All the Flickr users that responded had been on Flickr for at least 6 months, with the most significant proportion of users having been a member of Flickr for at least a year and a significant 15 users had been a member for over 2 years. This suggests that members of the Sheffield Flickr group are generally long term users, who are familiar with the site. Looking at the Flickr API in conjunction with this, the first date of which an image was taken and uploaded by a user dates as far back as 1941. Flickr obviously did not exist then, and is also reliant on the camera settings incorporating the correct date, however it would be worth considering in future investigations the usage of Flickr in terms of how long photographic practice has been in place for different members.

Type of photographer

Type of photographer Number Percentage % Casual/snapshooter 8 25 Amateur 20 62.5 Professional 4 12.5 Other 3 4.125

The largest proportion of Flickr users that responded considered themselves to be an amateur photographer. The implication of this is that for most of the Sheffield group users on Flickr, their contribution to a group is more that just casual photography and sharing of images; it is something they are aiming to improve on the whole in order to share. Photographic societies largely exist to provide a means to improve photography, and the fact that so many users in the group consider themselves to be amateur photographers suggests that Flickr is one way to do this. This also supports Cox (2007) who suggested that amateur photography is mostly linked with Flickr.

For the selection of „Other‟, respondents were asked to explain their perception of what type of photographer they were. The 3 responded with the following:

1. “Semi-professional (make roughly 10% of my income from photography)” 2. “Trying occasionally to get better shots, often I look at flickr groups for some ideas or techniques.” 3. “Serious... v.serious... considered an artist by some”

These personal responses regarding simply the type of photographer the individual member considered them self to be picked up on some interesting factors. The respondent that answered that they used Flickr groups for inspiration, for example, implies that Flickr groups are seen as a method of getting feedback and ideas, in the similar way to that of a photography club. In addition, the line between what some consider amateur photography to that of professional photographer seems blurred – the individual responses to „Other‟ when questioned what type of photographer the user considered themselves showed that their was a distinct mid-point between what they considered professional and amateur. The first response suggests their idea of what constitutes an amateur photographer and a professional photographer is too restrictive, and that there are other interpretations for what type of photographer they could be. This notion is supported by comment 3 where the serious nature and intent of their photography falls outside of (it is assumed) their perception of amateur and professional photography. The comment regarding the percentage of pay they received for their photography suggests that the user felt that in order to be fully professional, regardless of what they themselves considered they were, then photography needs to be their prime source of income. For another, the notion of photography as art with them as „artist‟ plays up an interesting point, particularly in relation to the written literature regarding photography as art (Newhall: 1992, Scharf: 1990). This brings into question whether the images uploaded to Flickr are not simply perceived as just photographs but also potential works of art. For example, the editing of a photograph before it is uploaded could be purveyed as a piece of art, because the edited version is no longer the original shot; the colours may have been changed etc. Therefore this may imply an additional, if smaller, category of photographer; that of the artist.

5.2.3: General usage of Flickr

The following sections of the questionnaire required responses from the users. 26 of the 35 respondents completed these sections. These questions were designed to elicit some thinking about the uses of Flickr and the user‟s personal behaviour.

The first question from this section is:

1. Why did you join the Flickr online website?

Users were advised to choose as many options from the list as applicable. The results show that 61.5%, 16 out of the 26 that completed the section joined Flickr specifically to share photos with their friends. This finding supports the literature regarding Flickr as a socially connecting website on which users upload images in order for friends to see them (Levy and Stone: 2006). Given the statistic from the previous section that revealed the majority of Sheffield Flickr users had been a member of Flickr for at least year, it suggests that in the wake of other social networking sites such as Facebook where photographs can be shared in a similar way, these sites are still relatively new and users who are already familiar with Flickr after being a member for such a length of time do not need the change. When briefly questioned on this during the interviews, one of the interviewees stated that they had been using Flickr much longer than Facebook, and as a result was more comfortable with Flickr. „I know my friends can see my Flickr photos because they are all contacts and know I share them on the site. I don‟t need to put them on Facebook too. I don‟t have time!‟. The factor of time is significant; as highlighted in the research by Frolich (2002), the time to manage image collections is key to how well they are maintained. By choosing one online image database over another, it is indicative of the time it would take to manage images on more than one. In addition, Facebook was originally designed for University/College students and has only recently become available to non-students (Phillips: 2007). Therefore the appeal of Flickr may be as a social networking and image sharing website for a slightly older generation of users, which could then account for the „age‟ question in the previous section of the questionnaire whereby users were generally above the average undergraduate student age.

The second purpose for joining Flickr was to meet like minded photographers. 13 of the 26 (50%) stated this was why they had joined, whilst a further 10 (38.5%) said they had joined Flickr to get inspiration on how to take photos. These results suggest that, like a photographic society, Flickr is seen as a social space in which to share photos but also to learn new photographic skills. The Sheffield Photographic Society (2008) states on its website that it invites members of all photography skills and knowledge to join, and hosts sub groups to teach new skills. These results would therefore suggest the group could be comparable to a photographic society in consideration of the intents to those that join it.

7 users selected „Other‟ and were asked to elaborate on why they joined the site. One called Flickr „a lazy picture editor‟s dream come true‟, saying they had „many enquiries through the site‟. Another joined from a recommendation of a friend but didn‟t catch the „bug‟ till after a year of use. 41

The more common theme however was that it is used as a back up for images, as a „storage unit‟. One respondent wrote they used Flickr as „a back up for my photos in case my laptop got damaged/stolen‟, whilst another said it was „a simple place for me to organise and back up the pictures that I‟ve taken which I consider to be the best‟. This organisational feature to Flickr is supported by the research written about image management, particularly the concept of 'image librarianship' (Coleman: 1997). The storage capabilities of Flickr are a key component to maintaining membership by its users, and it is clear that users are keen to use the storage facilities that Flickr has to offer. The implications of the users responses are that although much attention is now given to Flickr for its social networking features, the storage and management facilities are equally as important.

2. Of the following, how important is the following factors for you when taking a photo and choosing to share it on Flickr?

26 of the 35 respondents completed this section of the questionnaire. This question required a rating on a Likert scale of Not at all Important to Very important.

From the results, it is clear that the most significant aspect of a photo in which the Flickr member chooses to upload and share is whether they personally approve of the photo or not. 17 out of 26 Flickr users rated „Very important‟ to them personally liking the photo as a factor regarding whether they would put it on Flickr. This result suggests that Flickr members take pride in the images that they upload; the decision on whether to share it or not is whether they personally think the photo is particularly accomplished. Unusually, despite many stating the reason for which they joined Flickr was to share images with friends, 19 of the 26 users stated that a photo containing friends was „Not at all important‟ to „Irrelevant‟, and similarly for photos containing family 10 said this was „Not at all important‟. What this suggests is that it is of the quality of the photo, and perhaps a demonstration of technical skill which is what provokes Sheffield group members to upload photos to Flickr, in contrast to Facebook where photos are regularly shared because they do contain pictures of friends or family.

In addition, 16 users stated that personally thinking the photo is technically accomplished was „Quite important‟ when choosing to share. An additional 10 said that it was „Quite important‟ to them to upload images as a way of eliciting opinions from other Flickr or photographers. The technical accomplishment of an image has the implication that the photograph must be taken using 42 the best specifications available, both of the camera and the angle, in addition to any editing that has been applied to the image prior to uploading. It suggests Flickr members take satisfaction in the presenting the best of their images they upload onto Flickr. Furthermore, a significant amount of users upload images in order to elicit opinions from other users. In uploading images to gain opinions of other photographers and Flickr members, it has the implication that Flickr can act as a proxy photographic society, in so far as contributions from others could potentially impact on future images taken. The purpose, as established in the literature review, of camera clubs is the ability to share images and to gain perspective and opinions from other photographers. In addition, the Sheffield Photographic Society also specifically has meetings to help improve technical ability in the use of digital cameras. This therefore suggests that the use of the Sheffield Flickr group can be similar to that of amateur photographers joining the society for improvement of technical skill.

For those that answered „None of the above‟, a number of points were raised. In a similar response to the previous question, reasons for uploading photos to Flickr were for the organisation and image management that Flickr provides. In addition, another member wrote specifically that they „use Flickr to share pictures with people to get feedback‟. However they furthered the statement to say this was „all about private groups and discussing the edits‟. What can be implied from that response is that a public group, such as the Flickr group of which the respondent is a member, may not be used specifically for the improvement of photographs, but that instead there are private groups which are much closer to that of a photographic society in which photographs can be discussed and criticised. This suggests that Flickr can be used for such means, but that this has to be sought out; not all groups have the capability to act in similar means to a camera club but there are groups that do.

3. As a member of Flickr, please could you rate how often you use the following functions and social networking features of the website?

As with the previous question, members had to rate their answers on a Likert scale from „Never‟ to „Always‟.

As the literature review highlighted, collaborative tagging is an important and prominent feature that Flickr endorses, and the results support this with 15 of the 26 users stating they always tag their photos, with a further 10 stating they occasionally or regularly use the tagging feature. This suggests the Sheffield Flickr group members have a significant awareness of the tagging facility 43 used on Flickr, and are regular taggers. During the interviews, the use of tags was brought up by one of the interviewees, who said they enjoyed tagging images they uploaded of gigs as he has found he receives more image hits and more comments from doing so. This supports the research by Lerman and Jones (2006) and Van Zwol (2007) who both found that tagging increased the likelihood of an image being retrieved when searching on Flickr.

With regards to commenting, only 12 said they regularly comment on images uploaded in comparison to 13 who regularly use the discussion boards. This has the implication that when discussing photographs on Flickr users prefer to communicate via the medium of group discussion boards where more people are able to see problems or ideas and thereon contribute. This notion is supported by the questionnaire which also indicates that only a few people use the personal messaging feature of Flickr.

However, none of the users stated they never comment, which implies that although commenting is not a feature they choose to use regularly, they do use it along side the other social networking features. This therefore suggests comments can not be discounted as a relevant form of communication for the Sheffield group members.

5.2.4 Commenting on Flickr

This section was designed to come after users had considered their commenting behaviour from the last question in the previous section, in order to naturally progress towards the theme of the questionnaire of commenting.

1. How often would you say you comment on other people’s photos?

16 of the 26 users that responded said they would comment on a photo between every couple of days and a week, however a further 9 said they rarely commented at all. Only 1 respondent said they would comment at least once a day. This finding suggests that commenting is not a feature that users especially engage in, unless they have something specific to comment about, and also implies that for discussion about photographic practice this is likely to happen elsewhere. This was discussed in the interviews; one response was in agreement; when socialising on Flickr, they preferred to use the discussion board simply because they forget to follow up comments; „I always forget there‟s the “comments you‟ve made recently” link, I always forget to check them. Because I 44 check the boards most days, I‟m more likely to get in regular discussion and come back‟. The second interviewee said they simply did not have time to comment on the photos they liked, although they wished they could. Both responses give the implication that the comments feature would require greater endorsement by Flickr for it to work successfully; perhaps Flickr would need to promote it and make further notification links, for example, if someone replies to a comment you have made then to alert you on your Flickr homepage. This may increase the commenting behaviour of Flickr users.

However, no users said they did not comment at all, suggesting that the commenting feature as a whole was not disregarded, merely engaged when appropriate.

2. What tends to prompt you to comment on a photo on Flickr?

The most significant result was the first of the options, which was to comment on positive features of the photo. 22 out of 26 users (84.6%) stated they chose to comment on positive features of the photo, whilst only 2 members stated they would choose to comment on a negative feature. This fully supports the findings from the comments analysis, where the results showed that almost three quarters of comments left on the two sets of 100 photographs were positive, whilst only a very small proportion of comments were negative.

14 users however said they would comment to find out more about the subject of in the image. These results imply that commenting is primarily done to elicit further information, and commenting to ask a question about the subject would be likely to elicit a dialogue. This theory is supported by the comments analysis which also found that in several cases, photographs with many comments tended to commence with a question and followed with discussion by only a few members. However, the number of questions asked in the comments analysis was small, which suggests that perhaps theoretically users would ask questions regarding a subject but in practice this does not happen as much.

Within the context of Sheffield, by enquiring as to the subject of a photo be it an animal, person or building, it could be a way for other to gain inspiration on where to take pictures. As results showed earlier this is a significant reason for why users have joined Flickr. A further 10 said they would comment on a photo to find out more about the location, again an implication for learning more about the area, as well as potentially looking for new places to photograph in the area. This in turn could suggest the group is like a photographic society, because within these both inspiration and 45 ideas for picture taking are formulated through the collaboration of different photographers.

Only 2 respondents said they would comment to suggest technical or style improvements. Although for this research such comments have been considered as „constructive‟ it may be perceived as a negative criticism to the person receiving such a comment. Two interviewees said they generally refrained from leaving such comments. In particular, one interviewee said that they did not really criticise photos that belonged to non-contacts because they assumed the uploader was satisfied with the quality of the image already.

8 users also responded to „Other‟. Again a couple of themes emerged, primarily that users would comment on photos uploaded by friends. One responded wrote they commented in „a social capacity, I mostly comment on friends photos, to relive the joke‟, whilst another said the commented for „social networking, ie commenting on contacts photos‟. This re-emphasises the notion that Flickr as a social networking site and not simply an image hosting website; in a response to question 1 of this section of the questionnaire, one respondent commented that they thought Flickr was „the only place on the net with such a great and friendly userbase‟. During the interviews, an interviewee also said he found the „Contacts‟ section on their Flickr homepage a great way to remind them to check their friends photographs, and this in turn reminded them to view their images which he said 'would probably mean I leave a comment or two'. This therefore suggests a pattern of commenting related to contacts only.

3. What kind of comments would you say you have received since joining and sharing photos on Flickr?

24 out of 26 (92.3%) users said they had received positive comments since joining Flickr, whilst only 3 (11.5%) said they had received a negative comment. This supports the findings from the comments analysis whereby few comments purported a negative intent, and almost three quarters of the comments received being of a positive nature.

The significant difference between those that have received positive and negative comments could be explained through a number of causes. Responses throughout the questionnaire have highlighted that users see Flickr as a friendly community, which is supported by previous research. It may suggest therefore that users are unwilling to leave critical responses for fear of unwittingly offending another member and losing their 'positive' online persona. As the prior research has 46 shown, identity is an important element of Web 2.0 (Merchant: 2006). The need for positive attribution from other users would encourage positive commenting as this would then be more likely to be reciprocated. In addition, stringent Flickr group rules, including the Sheffield group, regarding negative behaviour would result in banning and not being able to participate in discussions or comment on images (Flick: 2008)

Of the additional types of comments received that were not listed, several respondents wrote they had regularly received comments inviting them to share their photograph on a group they were yet not a member of, or to have their image used externally from Flickr. This supports the findings from Negoescu and Gatica-Perez (2008) who found that invites to “catch-all groups” were a key element of group functioning on Flickr. However, one member commented on the questionnaire that a lot of these so-called 'positive comments' were actually 'pointless comments but generally comments are just a description of what the user sees in the image' whilst another wrote 'often they're pointless 'nice shot' comments'. The perception of a positive comment therefore is very subjective amongst the users themselves. A positive comment that a user might leave may seem negative to the author who is actively seeking constructive criticism as opposed to praise.

5.2.5 Receiving Comments

The fourth section of the questionnaire focussed specifically on the different types of comments Flickr members had received; positive, negative, constructive, and the types of questions asked regarding the image.

1. Of the positive comments you received, what were the comments focussed on?

Users were asked to select as many as appropriate from the given list. 23 out of 26 users said they had received a positive comment regarding the subject of the photo, whilst a further 16 said they had received positive comments regarding the style and the view within the image. These results suggest that comments tend to be left when Flickr members see an image that they like, or perhaps relate to. Only 4 members had received a positive comment regarding the type of camera they used, suggesting that such technical detail is irrelevant when writing to appreciate an image. However, 14 users had received positive comments regarding the technical accomplishment of their image and

47 therefore it suggests that technical features of achieving an image are to an extent perceived and positively commented on.

From the additional comments regarding other types of positive comments received, the originality of an image uploaded was positively commented on as well as the image in the context of a project that is ongoing. More interestingly, one member perceived a comment inviting them to join a group as a positive action, suggesting that such an invite is not always simply regarding the image and a request for it to be added, but that the appreciation of a members photography set on the whole is a cause for asking someone to sign up. There is a perceived negative attitude towards group invites; of the previous section, the 'pointless' comments received also referred to group invites that members did not want to join. It therefore appears that group invites have a mixed reception amongst Flickr users, of which some find it flattering to receive whilst others more annoying.

2. Of the negative comments you received what were the comments focussed on?

The majority of users, 16 out of 26, said that negative commenting was not applicable to them, suggesting that negative commenting is a rare occurrence and supporting the findings from the comments analysis which found relatively few negative comments compared to positive. However four members stated that the negative comments they had received were related to technical accomplishment, whilst a further 4 said it was related to the subject of the photo. From these results, it does appear that negative comments are down to the perception of the user as to whether it‟s a suggestion of help as opposed to a negative criticism. From the more detailed descriptions listed under „Other‟, for example, one respondent said that the comment was less negative, rather a constructive comment regarding how to crop the image. Two members however said they had received unprovoked negative comments; one reported they had received „threats!‟ whilst another said the comments were „just down right rude on a couple of occasions‟. When uploading images on to a public space such as Flickr, there is always the possibility of so-called trolls and users seeking to cause trouble. However as the results of both comments analysis and the questionnaire show, these only appear to signify a very small percentage of comments left on Flickr.

3. Of the constructive comments you received, what were the comments focussed on?

9 users stated that this was not applicable to them, as they had not received comments they perceived to be constructive. However 12 (46.2%) reported that constructive comments they had received were related to the technical accomplishment of the image in question. This could support 48 the notion that Flickr can be used to enhance photographic ability, as comments focussed on how an image has been achieved technically, in other words, relating to the composition and settings used on the camera in addition to technical editing such as using high resolution or colour enhancement, is one of the key reasons for which users have joined Flickr.

Three members also separately stated under 'Other' that composition was an aspect of some of their images that they had received constructive advice about. The fact that this point was made by three consecutive different Flickr members suggests that an important element of photography is that of how the subject or object within an image is placed within the context of the surroundings. When discussing the concept of constructive commenting within the interviews, one Flickr member said that they felt the idea of composition was 'a bit arty'. They stated they 'usually try to get as much of (the object) as possible in, but it also really depended on time'. This brings in the notion of whether a comment left with the intent of being constructive is always perceived so, as not everyone on Flickr is actively looking for additional help. A different member said they tended to ignore comments regarding how to improve their images when not added to groups because they 'just didn't really care...( I) wasn't looking to improve the photo otherwise I would have shared it more openly'.

4. Of the questions asked about your photo, what were they focussed on?

From the given list, 15 out of the 26 users (57.7%) stated they had received comments asking a question about the subject of their image. In addition, 12 (46.2%) users said they had also received comments asking questions about the technical aspect of the photograph, and another 12 said it was regarding the view within in the image. The shared interest within this particular Flickr group of the subject of Sheffield could explain the high rate in questions relating to their images, particularly in relation to the questions focussing on subjects and views as these are likely to be images that reflect something Sheffield group members would want to know more about. Questions regarding technical features of a photograph would imply that the person leaving the comment has both an interest in technical development of photography, in addition to perhaps themselves seeking to achieve something similar through their own photography. This could therefore be interpreted as an indication of the group being used to enhance photography skills, in the same was as discussions with other photographers at a camera club would do. Thus, it suggests that comments in the forms of questions have the potential to lead to the improvement in photographic practice. What this also shows with regards to categorising comments is that questions alone are not sufficient as a category, as there is clearly different types of questions that could form a sub-group. 49

5.2.6 Flickr and Photographic Practice

The final section draws into the objective in which an exploration of whether comments can impact on the photographic practice of Flickr members, in other words whether comments and thus opinions exposed to a user, are influential in users photography. This is to compare the concept of commenting to the discussions held within camera clubs and photographic societies in which discussions regarding members images lead to photographic improvement.

5. Would comments/a comment on Flickr from another user be likely to influence your photographic practice? 6. Please could you explain your answer to the previous question?

Respondents were asked to select from 'Yes', 'No' or 'Maybe'. Only 6 members answered 'Yes'. However, despite this number being relatively small (only 24%), it does suggest that commenting can directly influence the photography of the members, as it is clear that these comments are taken seriously. In addition, 16 users responded with 'Maybe'. This implies that although comments may not always influence the photographic practice of a Flickr member, there are occasions where comments may lead to a change.

This is supported by the answers left to the second part of the question in which respondents were asked to explain their answer. One respondent wrote 'Flickr is an excellent place for learning so any suggestions would at least be explored' whilst another wrote 'If I thought it was a good idea being offered I'd be inclined to try it in the future'. A common theme that arises from these responses is the question of who the person leaving the comment is. Several respondents wrote that if they respected the photographer leaving the comment, then they would be more likely to take on board their suggestions; one person wrote 'If I respect the photographer then I am much more likely to be influenced on them' whilst another wrote 'it depends on who said it really. When I get a comment from someone who I don't know I tend to check who they are....there;s a difference between an opinion and a genuine knowledge about photography'.

What is clear from these particular comments is that on Flickr there is a perceived hierarchy of photographic knowledge amongst users. This fits in with the argument from Anderson (2007) who discussed the power of such hierarchies within social networking sites of Web 2.0. The concept of 'respect' for another photographer is very subjective; as the literature review has shown, the interpretation of what good photography is, such as whether it is art, or amateur or neither, is a 50 debate in itself. Receiving advice from a member who does not know the style of photography you may particularly want to achieve means their comments are likely to be irrelevant. When discussing this issue with the interviewees, two of them agreed. One interviewee stated that 'as a music photographer, I appreciate helpful comments but I know what I know from practice. I'm happy with most of my shots that I put on Flickr. To be honest I don't get many comments from people giving hints to improve, I suppose.'

This notion is supported by another comment on the questionnaire, which stated 'I think there is an etiquette where unless you have specifically added your photo to a group, people will not criticize (even constructively) your photo'. This has highlighted an important point, which is that there is a perceived consensus that by sharing images with groups, it is opening the image up to criticism, good or bad. This could therefore support the idea that users join groups and share images specifically to elicit opinion and criticism, which in turn could impact on future photographic practice. This also supports the response from the interviewee as highlighted earlier, who stated they did not comment constructively regarding technical improvements on the images of non-contacts, as it is not clear the member is looking for help.

An additional theme that arose from the comments is that regarding technical advice and composition. The overall picture suggests comments on these particular aspects of a photograph are more relevant and more likely to be considered. One member wrote, 'If someone points out a better option for technique or composition afterwards it helps you to consider these things in the future', whilst another stated 'comments on composition of the picture are of greater relevance, although these are less frequent'. Advice from these areas is something that photographic societies such as the Sheffield Photographic Society seek to give members. What these results are therefore highlighting is that there is a link between groups, comments and improvement of photographic practice.

6. Conclusions

6.1 Overall Conclusions From the results, a number of conclusions can be formed in consideration of the aims and objectives stated in the first chapter. To re-iterate, these were:

7. What are the different types of comments left by Flickr users? 8. What proportion of comments are positive and negative? 9. Do Flickr members use comments as a means for developing their photography skills?

6.1.1 Commenting behaviour of the Sheffield Flickr Group

Commenting on Flickr is not a feature that is used by everyone. As the results of the questionnaire showed, comments are left by users infrequently, with few stating that they commented regularly. From the comments analysis, the number of comments left per image averaged at between 3 and a half to 4 per image, however in both sets only just over half of all images contained at least one comment. What this shows is that although commenting can occur, ranging up to 51 comments, the regularity of this varies from image to image.

Commenting behaviour also varies between Flickr members. As the results showed from the comments analysis, authors commenting in response to messages left beneath their images can vary; with some members responding to all comments left, whilst others simply responding to questions or not responding at all. This varying behaviour on the whole has proven difficult to quantify commenting behaviour because the range of different of images shared and the large number of users that are members within the group all vary in how they react to commenting.

6.1.2 Types of Commenting

The results of the comments analysis highlighted that comments can be categorised into at least 5 different basic types – positive, negative, constructive, questions and neutral. Although this achieves the objective of exploring the different types of comments left, these categories are insufficient at representing each individual type of comment that exists. As the questionnaire showed, positive comments alone for example can be divided into sub-categories, such as positive comments 52 regarding the subject, the colours, the angle and so on. The category of neutral commenting, although adequately titled for the discussion in this research is too vague. Neutral comments cover all comments that do not classify as positive, negative, constructive or a question; arguably neutral is too broad a term to cover the content of what constituted a neutral comment. What this research has therefore achieved is an identification of the main types of comments that are left, to broadly cover a variety of sub groups, and it can be concluded that categorising different types of comments is possible but difficult to quantify in consideration of all the different elements that are involved when analysis the language and other elements that make up individual comments.

6.1.3 Positive and Negative Commenting

As the online questionnaire revealed, Flickr members are reluctant to leave comments that negatively reflect upon an image that has been uploaded. This is supported from the results of the comments analysis on the two sets of photo, whereby a very small proportion of comments were negative. A significantly high proportion of comments were positive, and as the questionnaire revealed over 92% of the members of the Sheffield group had received positive commenting. The conclusion raised from this is that positive commenting behaviour is very strong amongst users on Flickr, and the likelihood of receiving positive comments or comments intended to purport a positive attributions is very high.

However, when formulating this conclusion is also necessary to consider the perceptions of individuals as to the positive or negative nature of the comments received. As the results showed from the online questionnaire, some comments that were left with the purpose of commenting positively on an image can be deemed 'pointless' by the author of the image. In addition, as noted previously, the levels of positive and negative features of a comment can vary, and some comments can contain elements of both. Therefore it can be concluded that when debating the positivity and negativity of a comment, it is very subjective to both the author and the person that leaves the comment.

6.1.4 Comments on Flickr and the impact on photographic practice

The results have shown that Flickr has the potential to impact and improve on its members photographic practice. Through the questionnaire, respondents revealed that they use Flickr as source of inspiration on subjects to photograph, to meet like minded photographers and to elicit 53 opinions from other photographers. These three features are similar to those of a camera club and photographic society where members of all abilities come together to discuss photography. It therefore suggests that to a certain extent, and to particular members of Flickr, the website can be used in a similar way to that of a photographic society to improve their photography skills.

In addition, when directly questioned whether comments from other members would impact on their photographic practice users stated they were willing to listen to advice, particularly regarding technical aspects of photography and the subjects they shoot. However, the results highlighted specifically that this was dependent on whether the advice was coming from another photographer that was 'respected'. In addition, it was also highlighted that the type of photographic discussion that would work in a similar way to that of a photographic clubs could occur only in specific groups. Therefore, it can be concluded that commenting on Flickr has the potential to improve the photography of users, however there are other means of doing so already existence on Flickr in the forms of other group discussions.

6.2 Research Limitations

There are a number of research limitations that affect the conclusions drawn in this project. Primarily, the project would have benefited from additional opinions when analyzing the comments of the two sets of 100 photographs to avoid bias and to elicit additional perspective regarding positive and negative interpretations of the comments. As a result, despite the efforts to avoid such, a degree of bias as to the perceptions of positivity and negativity within the comments may have occurred. By consulting others and gaining the perspective of those not involved with the research, this could have been improved. Unfortunately, time constraints were the factor that prevented this.

Having used a number of methodologies for this research, a large amount of data regarding both commenting behaviour and the consideration of photographic practice was collated. As a result, not all findings could be discussed. A focus that rested on just one of the two would have meant a deeper analysis of the behaviour on both accounts. I feel the results are therefore limited to what could be presented, and the research would have benefited from studying one area in more depth.

In addition, the interviews conducted, although insightful, are limited in so far as they portray only three individuals opinions. Their perspectives may not, therefore, be representative of the Sheffield

54 group on Flickr. Although the interviews did provide a very minimal input when discussing the results, the input it did have should be taken as having useful but as having limited authority. More interviews would thus have given a broader perspective of the Sheffield group.

As a significant part of this research was considering whether groups and comments on Flickr are comparable to that of a photographic society, it would have been very useful to have attended a meeting by the Sheffield Photographic Society to chat with members about their experiences. This would have added some strength in understanding when considering the issues. Unfortunately also due to time constraints, this was not possible.

Finally, the research was investigating just one geographical group from the United Kingdom. It is therefore not specifically representative of the commenting behaviour that occurs throughout Flickr. Although it does provide a useful insight into the types of comments that occur and the impact this has on photographic behaviour, it is necessary to consider that behaviour and culture are linked to geography and therefore commenting from groups from not only other areas in the country but also across the globe may well vary. The comments examined had very few comments left in a language other than English, for example, and there may be variations in positivity and negativity through colloquialisms used by those conversing in different languages. Therefore the research provides a snapshot into group behaviour of one geographical location but cannot conclusively represent Flickr as a website.

6.3 Further Research The research carried out for this investigation has its limitations; however what it has done is helped forge a path into this subject in order to study it. Further work could be carried out into the following areas:

Developing a Classification system for Comments Developing a classification scheme or at least a method of categorisation for the commenting that goes on across Flickr is somewhat complex. As the results have shown, simply attempting to categorise comments into 5 – that of positive, negative, constructive, questions and neutral – is insufficient to cover the different kinds of comments left across Flickr. Each of these would require several sub-categories at least, for example, regarding 'positive' comments, there could be categories for positive comments left relating to the colours, positive comments left relating to the technical accomplishment of the image, and so forth. In addition, the category of „a question‟ where a Flickr

55 member asks a question regarding the image, could refer to a number of things – the location of the photo, the angle of the photo, the time of day the image was taken and so on. Therefore sub- categories need to be considered in order to be more specific and incorporate these elements. A further study examining more closely these categories to expand on these findings would therefore be beneficial in better understanding the comments. In support of this, it would be useful to consider the development of a computer programme that could do this, as opposed to an individual manual analysis, for example through sentient analysis and data mining.

In addition, the research carried out for my investigation required a manual, personal analysis of the comments. Further research could pose examples of the types of comments left to non-users of Flickr to elicit their opinions on whether the comments are perceived as positive, negative and so on. This would reduce the bias of one individual‟s interpretations.

This study focussed on the behavioural patterns of one particular group on Flickr; however there are a great number of groups on Flickr that can compose of millions of users to just a few members in each. A comparison of two different groups and their commenting behaviour, for example, Newcastle versus Brighton could provide more insight to the commenting behaviour within the UK, whilst a comparison between a primarily American group to a British group would prove to investigate how two different cultures discuss images. It would also be useful to consider commenting in groups where the native language is not English, to see whether the commenting differs at all with those members.

Finally, when considering the theme of groups on Flickr being comparable to a photographic society, it would be relevant to consider a study in which the behaviour of a photographic society is more explicitly compared with a group on Flickr. This would allow a more comprehensive study of what the two groups have to offer and how they differ or change photographic practice.

6.4 Final statements

Within the time it has taken to complete this, the Sheffield Flickr group has developed a sub-group 'Not Made in Sheffield' for the Sheffield group members to share their photographs that were taken outside of Sheffield. This formation has signified the community that the Sheffield group has developed – this group has less members but the regular posters on the Sheffield group run the new one and share their images in the same way. The implications of this are that specific members of

56 the Sheffield Flickr group are a tight-knit community, who are comfortable with eachother and when seeking to share images prefer to do so with eachother rather than seeking additional groups to share with. This may have future implications for how groups on Flickr may develop, in terms of social interactions with new people.

In addition, a discussion thread, 'Shop it!' has appeared on the Sheffield Flickr group asking users to have a go at technically enhancing images on Photoshop and then sharing the results as a means of comparison. This particular discussion gives a potential further indication that the group has members specifically interested in learning new skills at improving and editing images, which in turn would suggest that some members of the group use it in a similar way to a camera club to enhance their photography skills.

The number of members of the Sheffield Flickr group has also increased up to 860 from the 829 that were there when this project commenced, and the number of images added to the group pool is now well over 17,000, possibly due to an increased interest in Sheffield in the wake of the demolition of the Tinsley Cooling Towers that occurred Bank Holiday weekend 2008 (BBC News: 2008). This particular group, and Flickr on the whole, are therefore still expanding, and looks to do so in the foreseeable future, Therefore the dynamics of image commenting will be interesting to follow throughout changes and growth of usage on the site.

7. Bibliography

Ahern, S., Eckles, D., Good, N. S., King, S., Naaman, M., and Nair, R. (2007) 'Over-exposed?: privacy patterns and considerations in online and mobile photo sharing' Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems [Online] (San Jose, California, USA, April 28 - May 03, 2007). CHI '07. ACM, New York, NY http://portal.acm.org/ft_gateway.cfm?id=1240683&type=pdf&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=11 18240&CFTOKEN=88174448 (Accessed: 10 August 2008)

Alexander, B. (2006) 'Web 2.0: A new wave of innovation and teaching?' [Online] at http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0621.pdf (Accessed: 10 August 2008)

Anderson, P. (2007) 'What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education' [Online] at http://www.jisc.org.uk/media/documents/techwatch/tsw0701b.pdf (Accessed: 22 July 2008)

Arch, X. (2007) „Creating the academic library Folksonomy: Put social tagging to work at your institution‟ College Research Library News [Online] 68 (2) 80-81 http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com/hww/jumpstart.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e7898ed99d755f114 52154146c22fb69ae46e92f12dd95ffd95529751f87470ea&fmt=P (Accessed: 6 May 2008)

Arrington, M. (2007) '2 Billion photos on Flickr' Tech Crunch [Online] at http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/13/2-billion-photos-on-flickr/ (Accessed: 13 July 2008)

Artiles, J., Gonzalo, J., Lopez-Ostenero, F. and Peinado, V. (2007) 'Are Users Willing to Search Cross-Language? An Experiment with the Flickr Image Sharing Repository' Lecture Notes in Computer Science [Online] 4730 195-203 http://www.springerlink.com/content/m001244jr2657284/fulltext.pdf (Accessed: 23 July 2008)

Balabanović, M., Chu, L. L., and Wolff, G. J. 2000. Storytelling with digital photographs. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems [Online] (The Hague, The Netherlands, April 01 - 06, 2000). CHI '00. ACM, New York, NY, 564-571 http://portal.acm.org/ft_gateway.cfm?id=332505&type=pdf&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=111 1092&CFTOKEN=93298662 (Accessed: 23 June 2008)

BBC News (2008) 'Blast demolishes landmark towers' BBC News Online [Online] at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/7578266.stm (Accessed: 25 August 2008)

Bell, J. (1999) Doing your research project (Buckingham: Open University Press)

Blanchard, A. & Horan, T. (1998) 'Virtual communities and social capital' Social Science Computer Review, [Online] 16 (3) 293-307 http://ssc.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/16/3/293 (Accessed: 10 August 2008)

Bode, S. and Wombell, P. (1991) PhotoVideo. Photography in the Age of the Computer. (London: Rivers Oram)

Boulos, M. N. and Wheeler, S. (2007) „The emerging Web 2.0 social software: an enabling suite of sociable technologies in health and health care education‟ Health Information and Libraries Journal [Online] 24 2-23 http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2007.00701.x (Accessed: 6 May 2008)

Bouma, G.D. and Atkinson, G.B.J. (1995) A Handbook of Social Science Research (Oxford: Oxford University Press)

Chudnov et.al (2005) „Experiments in academic social book marking with Unalog‟ Library Hi Tech [Online] 23 (4) 469-480 http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/07378830510636274 (Accessed: 2 May 2008)

Coleman, A.D. (1998) The Digital Evolution – Visual Communication in the Electronic Age: Essays, Lectures and Interviews 1967-1998 (Tuscon: Nazraeli Press)

Cox, A. (2007) 'Flickr: What is New in Web 2.0?' [Online] http://www.postgrad.ac.uk/content/1/c6/04/77/66/flickr%20paper.pdf (Accessed: 24 August 2008)

Crabtree, A., Rodden, T., and Mariani, J. 2004. Collaborating around collections: informing the continued development of photoware. In Proceedings of the 2004 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work [Online] (Chicago, Illinois, USA, November 06 - 10, 2004). CSCW '04. ACM, New York, NY, 396-405 http://portal.acm.org/ft_gateway.cfm?id=1031673&type=pdf&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=11 10917&CFTOKEN=93566586 (Accessed: 20 August 2008)

Das, T.H. (1983). 'Qualitative research in organisational behaviour' Journal of Management Studies 20 (3) 301-304

Davies, J. (2006) 'Affinities and Beyond! Developing Ways of Seeing in Online Spaces' E-Learning [Online] 3 (2) 217-234 http://www.wwwords.co.uk/pdf/validate.asp?j=elea&vol=3&issue=2&year=2006&article=8_Davie s_ELEA_3_2_web (Accessed: 10 August 2008) de Mare, E. (1970) Photography 5th ed. (London: Penguin Ltd)

Edinburgh Photographic Society (2008) 'Edinburgh Photograhic Society' EPS Online [Online] at http://www.edinburghphotographicsociety.co.uk/CMS/index.php (Accessed: 2 May 2008)

Fallows, D. (2005) 'How women and men use the Internet' Pew Internet & American Life Project. [Online] http://www.pewInternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Women_and_Men_online.pdf (Accessed: 10 August 2008)

Flickr (2008) 'FAQ: Groups' Flickr [Online] http://www.flickr.com/help/groups/ (Accessed: 24 July 2008)

Flickr (2008) 'Sheffield Group: Group Rules/Guidelines' Flickr [Online] http://www.flickr.com/groups/sheffield/discuss/72157603359938856/ (Accessed: 20 July 2008)

Fox, R. (2006) „Cataloguing for the masses‟ OCLC Systems & Services: International digital library perspectives [Online] 22 (3) 166-172 http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/10650750610686225 (Accessed: 1 May 2008)

Freund, G. (1980) Photography and Society (London: The Gordon Fraser Gallery Ltd)

Frohlich, D. et al. (2002) Requirements for photoware. In Proceedings of the 2002 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work [Online] (New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, November 16 - 20, 2002). CSCW '02. ACM, New York, NY, 166-175 59 http://portal.acm.org/ft_gateway.cfm?id=587102&type=pdf&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=111 2695&CFTOKEN=51782705 (Accessed: 9 August 2008)

Glauber, C. (2007) 'Eyes of the Earth' Oregon Historical Quarterly [Online] 108 (1) 34-67 http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ohq/108.1/glauber.html (Accessed: 12 August 2008)

Gordon-Murnane, L. (2006) „Social Bookmarking, Folksonomies, and Web 2.0 Tools‟ Searcher [Online] 14 (6) 26-48 http://proquest.umi.com.eresources.shef.ac.uk/pqdlink?did=1061344611&Fmt=7&clientId=29199& RQT=309&VName=PQD (Accessed: 14 May 2008)

Gorard, S. and Taylor, C. (2004) Combining methods in Educational Research (London: Open University Press)

Graham, J. (2006) 'Flickr of an idea on a gaming project led to photo website' USA Today [Online] http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/2006-02-27-flickr_x.htm (Accessed: 23 July 2008)

Griffin, M. (1986) “Amateur photography and pictorial aesthetics: influences of organization and industry on cultural production” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania

Grinter, R. (2005) 'Words about Images: Coordinating Community in Amateur Photography' Computer Supported Operative Work [Online] 14 (2) 161-188 http://www.springerlink.com/content/x817101u768110u1/fulltext.pdf (Accessed: 8 August 2008)

Horrigan, J.B, Rainie L and Fox S. (2001). 'Online communities: networks that nurture long-distance relationship and local ties' [Online] http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Communities_Report.pdf (Accessed: 10 August 2008)

Kanis, M. and Brinkman, W. P. (2007) 'What do people like?: the design of a mobile tool to harness and share positive thoughts' In Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics: invent! Explore! [Online] (London, United Kingdom, August 28 - 31, 2007). ECCE '07, vol. 250. ACM, New York, NY http://portal.acm.org/ft_gateway.cfm?id=1362589&type=pdf&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=11 17165&CFTOKEN=22673510 (Accessed: 10 August 2008)

Kennedy, L., Naaman, M., Ahern, S., Nair, R., and Rattenbury, T. (2007) 'How flickr helps us make sense of the world: context and content in community-contributed media collections' Proceedings of the 15th international Conference on Multimedia [Online] (Augsburg, Germany, September 25 - 29, 2007). MULTIMEDIA '07. ACM, New York, NY, 631-640 http://portal.acm.org/ft_gateway.cfm?id=1291384&type=pdf&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=11 14367&CFTOKEN=61867459 (Accessed: 1 August 2008)

Kim, J. and Zimmerman, J. (2006) 'Cherish: smart digital photo frames for sharing social narratives at home' CHI '06 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems [Online] 953-958 http://portal.acm.org.eresources.shef.ac.uk/ft_gateway.cfm?id=1125635&type=pdf&coll=ACM&dl =ACM&CFID=1004581&CFTOKEN=73459857 (Accessed: 14 August 2008)

Kirk, D. et al. (2006) Understanding photowork. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems [Online] (Montréal, Québec, Canada, April 22 - 27, 2006). R. Grinter, T. Rodden, P. Aoki, E. Cutrell, R. Jeffries, and G. Olson, Eds. CHI '06. ACM, New York, NY, 761-770 60 http://portal.acm.org/ft_gateway.cfm?id=1124885&type=pdf&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=11 11514&CFTOKEN=29184564 (Accessed: 10 August 2008)

Lerman, K. and Jones, L. (2006) 'Social Browsing on Flickr' International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media [Online] http://arxiv.org/pdf/cs/0612047v1 (Accessed: 3 May 2008)

Levy, S. and Stone, B. (2006) 'The New Wisdom of the Web' Newsweek [Online] April 3rd http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12015774/site/newsweek/ (Accessed: 2 May 2008)

Liccardi, I., Davis, H. C., and White, S. (2007) 'CAWS: a wiki system to improve workspace awareness to advance effectiveness of co-authoring activities' CHI '07 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems [Online] (San Jose, CA, USA, April 28 - May 03, 2007). CHI '07. ACM, New York, NY http://portal.acm.org/ft_gateway.cfm?id=1241040&type=pdf&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=11 16900&CFTOKEN=44193668 (Accessed: 22 August 2008)

MacGregor, G. and McCullock, E. (2006) „Collaborative tagging as a knowledge organization and resource discovery tool‟ Library Review [Online] 55 (5) pp.291-300 http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/00242530610667558 (Accessed: 1 May 2008)

Mathes, A. (2004) Folksonomies - Cooperative Classification and Communication Through Shared Metadata [Online] Adam Mathes. http://www.adammathes.com/academic/computer-mediated- communication/folksonomies.html (Accessed: 2 May 2008)

Merchant, G. (2006) 'Identity, Social Networks and Online Communication' E-Learning [Online] 3 (2) http://www.wwwords.co.uk/pdf/viewpdf.asp?j=elea&vol=3&issue=2&year=2006&article=9_Merc hant_ELEA_3_2_web&id=82.38.248.223 (Accessed: 3 May 2008)

Miller, A. D. and Edwards, W. K. (2007) 'Give and take: a study of consumer photo-sharing culture and practice' Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems [Online] (San Jose, California, USA, April 28 - May 03, 2007). CHI '07. ACM, New York, NY, 347- 356 http://portal.acm.org/ft_gateway.cfm?id=1240682&type=pdf&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=11 18115&CFTOKEN=34438565 (Accessed: 10 August 2008)

Negoescu, R. A. and Gatica-Perez, D. (2008) 'Analyzing Flickr groups' Proceedings of the 2008 international Conference on Content-Based Image and Video Retrieval [Online] (Niagara Falls, Canada, July 07 - 09, 2008). CIVR '08. ACM, New York, NY, 417-426 http://portal.acm.org/ft_gateway.cfm?id=1386406&type=pdf&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=11 14735&CFTOKEN=91574075 (Accessed: 12 August 2008)

Newhall, B. (1982) The History of Photography (New York: Bulfinch Press/Little, Brown and Company)

Phillips, S. (2007) 'A Brief history of Facebook' The Guardian Online [Online] http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/jul/25/media.newmedia (Accessed: 10 August 2008)

Price, D. and Wells, L. (1997) 'Thinking about Photography' in Photography: A Critical Introduction ed. L. Wells (London: Routledge) pp.11-54

Rafferty, P. and Hidderley, R. (2007) „Flickr and Democratic Indexing: dialogic approaches to 61 indexing‟ Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives [Online] 59 (4/5) 397-410 http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/00012530710817591 (Accessed: 1 May 2008)

Rodden, K. and Wood, K. R. 2003. How do people manage their digital photographs?. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems [Online] (Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, USA, April 05 - 10, 2003). CHI '03. ACM, New York, NY, 409-416 http://portal.acm.org/ft_gateway.cfm?id=642682&type=pdf&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=111 2695&CFTOKEN=51782705 (Accessed: 1 August 2008)

(The) Royal Photographic Society (2008) 'The Royal Photographic Society' RPS Online [Online] http://www.rps.org/ (Accessed: 3 May 2008)

Ruby, J. (1981) 'Seeing through the Pictures: The anthropology of photography' Critical Art [Online] 3-18 http://archive.lib.msu.edu/DMC/African%20Journals/pdfs/Critical%20Arts/cajv1n4/caj001004002. pdf (Accessed: 10 August 2008)

Scharf, A. (1990) Art and Photography (London: Penguin Books Ltd)

Schwartz, D. (1986) 'Camera Clubs and Fine Art Photography: The Social Construction of an Elite Code' Journal of Contemporary Ethnography [Online] 15 165-195 http://jce.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/15/2/165 (Accessed: 28 May 2008)

Sheffield Photographic Society (2008) 'Sheffield Photographic Society' SPS Online [Online] http://www.sheffield-photographer.org.uk/ (Accessed: 1 May 2008)

Slater, D. (1999) Marketing mass photography, in Visual culture: the reader ed. J.Evans, J. & S. Hall (London: Sage)

Snavely, N., Seitz, S. M., and Szeliski, R. (2006) 'Photo tourism: exploring photo collections in 3D' In ACM SIGGRAPH 2006 Papers [Online] (Boston, Massachusetts, July 30 - August 03, 2006). SIGGRAPH '06. ACM, New York, NY http://portal.acm.org/ft_gateway.cfm?id=1141964&type=pdf&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=11 14178&CFTOKEN=78846458 (Accessed: 10 August 2008)

Thelwall, M. (2008) 'Social Networks, Gender and Friending: An Analysis of MySpace Member Profiles' [Online] at http://www.scit.wlv.ac.uk/~cm1993/papers/MySpace_preprint.doc (Accessed: 23 August 2008) van House, N. A. (2007) Flickr and public image-sharing: distant closeness and photo exhibition CHI '07 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems [Online] (San Jose, CA, USA, April 28 - May 03, 2007). CHI '07. ACM, New York, NY http://portal.acm.org/ft_gateway.cfm?id=1241068&type=pdf&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=11 09997&CFTOKEN=72734454 (Accessed: 31 July 2008) van Zwol, R. (2007) 'Flickr: Who is Looking?' Proceedings of the IEEE/WIC/ACM international Conference on Web intelligence [Online] (November 02 - 05, 2007). Web Intelligence. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, 184-190 http://portal.acm.org/ft_gateway.cfm?id=1331834&type=pdf&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=11 14735&CFTOKEN=91574075 (Accessed: 10 August 2008)

Vander Wal, T. (2005) „Off the top: Folksonomy Entries‟ Thomas Vander Wal's, vanderwal.net 62

[Online] Thomas Vander Wal http://www.vanderwal.net/random/category.php?cat=153 (Accessed: 10 May 2008)

West, N. (2007) 'Magnum Opus' The Telegraph Online [Online] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2007/10/27/sm_magnum.xml (Accessed: 11 August 2008)

8. Abstract 8.1 Data Samples for Comment Analysis

8.1.1 Set 1 Data Sample (spreadsheet)

Random Number Photo Title No. Comments No. different users No. comments by author Author Emoticons P/N Constr. Ques. Neutral

202 The Sound Control Bum 1 1 0 ShaneRounce 0 1N 262 Town Hall 0 0 0 Flobbybot Hobosapien 0 123 North Stand 0 0 0 M_Markhan 0 471 The Great Idol 12 12 1 Fishyfisharcade 1 7P 4 1 365 Finally we had snow 2 2 0 ErhuDave 1 2P 546 Crane 0 0 0 Manic.D 0 186 Ars Longa Vita Brevis 0 0 0 Slack---Line 0 166 David Blunkett 0 0 0 Hitchiker_1980 0 474 VWW 8 6 2 Evissa 0 6P 241 Somewhere over the rainbow 3 2 1 Loulrc 0 2P 1 258 Heeley Bridge 1 3 3 0 DavidTrin 0 1 1 1 217 15th August/big rigs + tight roads don't3 mix 3 0 Alleroo 0 2P 1 39 Steppystones 0 0 0 Joey 7 0 533 Keeping an eye on the competition 8 8 0 Roger B. 2 7P 1 70 Wooden head 0 0 0 diavolo_felice 0 86 100_5674 0 0 0 Jeanie G. 0 10 Amazing Art 0 0 0 In focus now 0 522 Demolition 1 1 0 Roger B. 0 1P 368 Stadium in the sun 0 0 0 Reverend Sam 0 235 Children 0 0 0 ShaneRounce 0 382 Swirl 17 15 2 Thrift 4 12P 2 3 283 Somme Barracks 4 3 1 Harry Halibut 1 3P 1 160 On Edge 7 7 0 GiggleJuice 1 7P 456 In blissful ignorance 0 0 0 SuburbandK 0 239 Frankie and Benny's close up 8 8 0 Electrolyte2006 0 7P 1 317 Rusty shiny 16 16 1 Alleroo 3 14P 1 1 422 October 2003 033 2 2 1 DorothyArne 0 2P 333 Underpass 4 4 1 StubbsUK 0 2P 1 1 409 River Don 0 0 0 Roger B. 0 228 Cemetery and flowers 9 7 3 pezter_p 0 6P 2 1 45 Mulberry Street 0 0 0 Harry Halibut 0 61 High Seat 0 0 0 MysticMogg 0 133 Cooling Towers Meadowhall 0 0 0 m_Markhan 0 158 Sprint 3 3 1 Abutler 1 2P 1 73 Pg 0 0 0 Harry Halibut 0 236 Rock dancing!! 7 3 2 Mikejilljessicatomlee 2 3P/1N 2 216 Life I love You 11 4 2 ClydeHouse 0 1P/3N 5 2 436 Sky police 0 0 0 Ben Askew 0 317 Dusky U. 2 2 0 Lucasdigital 0 1P 1 142 Redmires 11 11 1 Moinakbasu2002 3 8P 2 1 64 Oo, Shiny! 0 0 0 polly.jayne 0 93 Stroller 2 2 0 Harry Halibut 0 2P 477 St. Georges Church 0 0 0 Chocoadicta 0 150 Watch out for those balls! 1 1 0 Mardy1 0 1 398 06 Heliosphere 3 2 1 Davosmith 0 1P 2 87 Density 3 3 1 Harry Halibut 1 2P 1 1 246 Fruity 1 1 1 Harry Halibut 1 1P 337 Rivelin Valley 0 0 0 Mardy1 0 71 KR Autos 2 2 0 Mygrassisalwaysblue 0 1P 1 177 Victoria Quays 1 1 0 Bits of rubble 0 1 476 Fountain/metal ball thingy 2 2 0 Jennywooyay 1 1P 1 344 11 11 1 Lemon2 3 7P 3 1 320 25 21 4 GiggleJuice 5 19P 4 2 180 Passerbys 0 0 0 77krc 0 509 Angry! 1 1 0 TroisTetes (TT) 0 1P 253 Cloud formations 0 0 0 * Simon * 0 526 Hotel 3 2 1 Ms Moll 0 2P 1 533 Red sky int' mornin' 5 4 1 StubbsUK 0 5P 49 The hubs 0 0 0 Harry Halibut 0 393 Kid Acne at the Casbah 5 3 2 Evissa 1 4P 1 473 Down the Moor 4 4 1 fishyfisharcade 0 4P 112 Lift 0 0 0 Fade to grey 0 172 Boom Flash Pop Fitzz 51 25 21 mikejilljessicatomlee 7 47P 2 2 55 Fountain 0 0 0 Fassing pancy 0 74 Decisions, decisions 0 0 0 polly.jayne 0 230 Bassett's (pinhole) 0 0 0 fishyfisharcade 0 550 Big shed # 2 0 0 0 Roger B. 0 61 Grey 7 7 0 GiggleJuice 0 4P 2 1 319 The inspectors 2 2 0 Polandeze 0 2P 3 Sheffield – looking east 2 2 0 Starquake_UK 0 1P 1 390 Halifax road, Sheffield 0 0 0 MarkSheffield 0 339 Top of Blake Street 2 2 0 Geo3pea 1 1 1 368 Mark and Richard 0 0 0 Dan Sumption 0 543 Dinner may be delayed 0 0 0 Dr Joolz 0 322 Top of Fargate 0 0 0 Floppy Boot 0 189 Halloween 0 0 0 Harry Halibut 0 47 Sheffield city centre at night 0 0 0 Starquake_UK 0 72 Travel Place with Cranes 0 0 0 m_Markhan 0 268 Not hurt and not too wet! 1 1 0 Simon Mulvaney 0 1 174 Spinning an swinging! 18 8 4 Mikejilljessicatomlee 2 16P 2 367 Reflected 0 0 0 Th3g 0 126 Flash 1 1 0 ShaneRounce 0 1P 394 Live forever or Die Trying 1 1 0 Dan Sumption 1 1P 151 Smoke and city 0 0 0 polandeze 0 104 Shelf life 0 0 0 mygrassisalwaysblue 0 350 500 teabags 15 15 1 Lemon2 2 9P/4N 1 1 204 Council Chamber 0 0 0 Bruno Postle 0 95 Treehouse 5 5 1 ...:CMYK:... 0 4P 1 62 . 1 1 0 JD!! 1 1P 39 Vivid imagination 3 1 0 ShaneRounce 0 3P 1 129 River Rivelin 21 21 0 Roger B. 2 21P 440 St Joesph 3 3 0 ClydeHouse 1 3P 418 2006_10230011 0 0 0 Ben Askew 0 357 Tram Lines 0 0 0 Danorak 0 445 Star Newspaper 06.09.06 5 4 1 Mikejilljessicatomlee 0 1P 2 1 1 411 American Head Charge 0 0 0 Darkish Gray 0 345 Town Hall, Sheffield 0 0 0 Ricdavsoc 0 527 KFC no longer 4 3 1 Ms Moll 2 1P 3 162 Town Centre 0 0 0 Dill-h.com 0 46 The Bridge Inn 3 2 1 Harry Halibut 1 3P 65

8.1.2 Set 2 (South Yorkshire Tagged)

South Yorkshire Tagged

Photo no. Title No. comments No. users No. commentsEmoticons by author Author P/N Constr. Ques. Neutral 347 Sipelia Works!! 4 2 2 0 diavolo_felice 1P 1 2 174 Life on Moors 2 2 0 0 Mardy1 2P 181 Sheffield train station 1 1 0 0 Andyjakeman 1P 94 City Hall 2 2 0 1 SimonK 2P 142 Sheffield winter gardens night shot 0 0 0 0 Siandara 474 Press cutting 16 12 2 2 Roger B. 6P/4N 1 5 256 The glowing autumn 7 7 0 0 IzaD's photogroundTM 7P 834 New and old 0 0 0 0 Earthwatcher 48 Your hosts 3 2 1 0 ClydeHouse 1N 2 881 Autumn beaches 1 1 0 0 Earthwatcher 1P 888 Oar 4 14 12 2 0 John Wardell (Nethino) 10P 1 3 459 Sheffield jumpers 2 5 5 1 2 Knautia 5P 292 Stitched panorama of Sheffield from Sky Edge 0 0 0 0 Joey 7 478 Water power 2 2 0 0 Roger B. 2P 594 0703 Sheffield Odeon (2u) 2 2 0 1 Stagedoor 2P 596 Sheffield peace gardens fountains 11 5 5 4 Earthwatcher 7P 2 2 436 Window 0 0 0 0 Haysie1 514 The ox stones on Burbage Moor, S.Yorkshire 24 10 9 0 Earthwatcher 16P 8 625 Sheffield 1982: Argys on the run 12 8 3 1 SimonK 11P 1 650 Shalesmoor roundabout 3 2 1 1 Niinka 3P 428 White Croft S1 0 0 0 0 Niinka 3 Above the overpass 1 1 0 0 pezter_p 1P 340 Fireflies and flares 18 12 6 5 ::stromberg:: [::off for Tokyo::] 15P 3 541 Loxley fisheries 1 1 0 0 Niinka 1P 326 no. 50 1 1 0 0 Mardy1 1P 51 Arms 2 2 1 0 ClydeHouse 1P 1 882 Reflections 2 2 1 0 Earthwatcher 2P 730 8 3 4 1 Niinka 7P 1 547 Trees 0 0 0 0 Niinka 306 Sky Edge 4 3 2 0 Doilum 3P 1 322 Reflection 2 0 0 0 0 diavolo_felice 401 House 1 1 0 0 Mardy1 1P 648 Walkley, Sheffield 9.07am 3 3 0 3 Roger B. 2P 1 64 Untitled 0 0 0 0 Madewithpixels 89 Super-size poetry – Sheffield on Mayday, 5th May 2008 0 0 0 0 Patricia Newton-Carline 644 Middlewood Road S6 0 0 0 0 Niinka 588 A thoughtful relaxing snap time 2 2 0 1 Earthwatcher 2 532 New Beech leaves 1 0 0 0 0 Earthwatcher 584 Not always worth it 0 0 0 0 Strawbleu TM 471 Police helicopter 0 0 0 0 Snowbabies 273 White and Silver 24 23 2 0 Earthwatcher 22P 2 535 Brown Lane 2 2 1 0 Haysie1 1 1 176 Rarity v1.2 9 9 0 1 IzaD's photoground TM 9P 620 Sheffield 1982: Red Mecca 3 3 1 1 SimonK 1P 1 1 755 Hillsborough S6 0 0 0 0 Niinka 161 Sheffield at night 0 0 0 0 Joey 7 398 Coppice farm 3 3 1 0 Mardy1 2P 1 448 Winter gardens curvy roof 2 2 1 1 IzaD's photoground TM 1P 1 218 Sunset 2 2 0 0 Ali-PG 2P 674 Stannage Gritstone 0 0 0 0 Asidian 485 Jump Sheffielders! 20 15 5 2 Knautia 15P 2 2 1 657 Laurel works S3 0 0 0 0 Niinka 726 Green Lane S3 4 2 2 0 Niinka 3P 1 482 Brooding barley 20 16 5 1 Earthwatcher 14P 2 2 2 407 Pinstone street 0 0 0 0 SimonK 314 Gates 4 1 1 0 0 diavolo_felice 1P 378 Sheffield fayre 0 0 0 0 Niinka 327 The cats meow 0 0 0 0 diavolo_felice 296 Sky Edge 2 2 1 0 Doilum 1P 1 257 Wavey arms 3 2 1 3 diavolo_felice 1 2 170 Graves art gallery 0 0 0 0 Siandara 13 Woodland clearing 0 0 0 0 Earthwatcher 483 Porter waterfall 2 2 2 1 0 Earthwatcher 2P 540 Wisewood cemetery 0 0 0 0 Niinka 197 On the wire 0 0 0 0 Slack---line 109 Street art/graffiti of John Peel in Sheffield 1 1 0 0 Dan Finnan 1P 53 Bison ska 1 1 0 1 ClydeHouse 1P 870 Light juggler 2 2 0 0 madewithpixels 2P 553 Flowers orton 13 13 1 0 JonTait2002 7P 3 3 240 Out of Leopold Square 0 0 0 0 sjs.sheffield 530 Resting 1 2 2 1 1 Earthwatcher 1P 1 147 Sheffield Night Shot 0 0 0 0 Siandara 85 Breakthrough 1 1 0 1 Ombre chimique 1P 251 Fountain dash 13 13 0 0 Dave JG 13P 198 Snow 7 2 3 1 diavolo_felice 5P 1 1 803 Solly Street S1 2 2 1 1 Niinka 1P 1 429 White Croft S1 0 0 0 0 Niinka 572 Winter gardens Sheffield (HDR) 6 6 0 0 ClydeHouse 6P 35 More hall mosaic 20 20 0 0 pezter_p 20P 897 You mean there's an 8AM as well?? 35 33 2 2 StubbsUK 20P/2N 3 2 440 Sheaf Square 0 0 0 0 IzaD's photoground TM 804 Broad lane S1 0 0 0 0 Niinka 520 Tinsley viaduct in Sheffield 1 1 1 0 Mandar Marathe 1P 102 Within the trees (Sheffield.Ranmoor.Nethergreen) 6 3 3 1 diavolo_felice 5P 1 84 Sheffield by day – 6.30am 4 3 1 2 Mahoneyweb 3P 1 820 Kutrite 0 0 0 0 Niinka 357 Bench plaque 0 0 0 0 Mardy1 664 Peace garden 0 0 0 0 KCLam 111 IMGP1795 0 0 0 0 Russelljsmith 581 St Michaels Roman-Catholic cemetery 0 0 0 0 niinka 199 Improvements? 19 6 8 3 diavolo_felice 12P 1 6 248 Resting coffee culture 0 0 0 0 diavolo_felice 209 Dawn Hedgerow 0 0 0 0 Earthwatcher 2 43 Moi 9 6 4 6 * Simon * 6P 3 83 Sheffield by night – 9.30pm 10 4 5 4 mahoneyweb 4P 2 2 2 494 As torrents in summer.....5 0 0 0 0 Earthwatcher 280 Light up the road 2 1 2 0 diavolo_felice 1P 1 173 Walk on by! 5 3 2 1 diavolo_felice 4P 1 356 Division Street S1 3 3 1 0 Niinka 1P 1 1 435 Tiling bricks 0 0 0 0 Haysie1 67

8.2 Online Questionnaire

URL: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=OpO_2fFu6OMrRzoLzt5zR8zg_3d_3d

A Survey on Flickr and how it is used

I am an MA student in Librarianship at the University of Sheffield. I am conducting research for my dissertation on how Flickr members use the website. This survey focuses on the ways in which the various features and functions of Flickr are used, looking more specifically at the way your commenting is performed on Flickr. Your responses are very valuable and would be much appreciated!

The data I collect from this survey will be kept entirely confidential. All responses are for my dissertation project only and details regarding individual responses will be kept wholly anonymous when published in my report. Any saved data will be reviewed and kept by me on a highly secure hard drive and will be deleted once the project is finished.

If you have any questions, worries or comments after completing the survey, please feel free to email me at [email protected] and I will be more than happy to help. Many thanks!

The Basics

1. Gender: Response Response

Percent Count Male 66.7% 22 Female 33.3% 11 answered question 33

skipped question 2

2. How old are you? Response Response

Percent Count 18 and under 2.9% 1 19-21 2.9% 1 22-29 29.4% 10 30-39 44.1% 15 40-49 17.6% 6 50 and over 2.9% 1 answered question 34 skipped question 1

3. How long have you been a member of Flickr? Response Response

Percent Count New to Flickr 0.0% 0 Less than a month 0.0% 0 1 - 6 months 0.0% 0 6 months - 1 year 8.8% 3 68

3. How long have you been a member of Flickr? 1 - 2 years 47.1% 16 Over 2 years 44.1% 15 answered question 34 skipped question 1

4. What kind of photographer would you say you are? Response Response

Percent Count Casual/snapshooter 24.2% 8 Amateur 63.6% 21 Professional 12.1% 4 Other (please specify) 3 answered question 33 skipped question 2

Other:

1.Semi-professional (make roughly 10% of my income from photography) 2.Trying occasionally to get better shots, often I look at flickr groups for some ideas or techniques 3.Serious... v.serious... considered an artist by some

General usage of Flickr

1. Why did you join the Flickr online photo website? (please select as many as appropriate)

Response Response

Percent Count To share my photos with family 46.2% 12 To share my photos with friends 61.5% 16 To meet likeminded photographers 50.0% 13 Member of Yahoo! and natural choice for hosting photos 11.5% 3 To develop technical photography skills 30.8% 8 To get inspiration on subjects for photos 30.8% 8 To get inspiration on how to take photos 38.5% 10 Other (please specify) 7 answered question 26 skipped question 9 Other

1. difficult to articulate in a few words 2. originally to use the API system to host photos for my site, but this turned out to be crap. now to use a couple of groups to talk to people who are in similar situations to me 3. Recommendation from a friend. Didn't really use the site for first year - didn't see much point - but gradually caught the bug. 4. A simple place for me to organise and back-up the pictures that I've taken which I consider to be the best, as opposed to locally copying them into a separate folder and buring to CD or an external HD every so often 5. started with the intention of sharing photos with some friends i know because its the best image hosting ive come across, it fed my passion for photography and now just under 2 years down the line, im am an armature photographer 69

6. As secure online storage / backup for my photos, in case my laptop got damaged / stolen. 7. Because the open nature of Flickr allows me to showcase my images on my website. This makes updating my website with recent work very straightforward indeed. Also Flickr is a lazy picture editor's dream come true. I've had many enquiries through the site.

2. Of the following, how important is each of the following factors for you when taking a photo and choosing to share it on Flickr? Not at all Not Quite Very Rating Response Indifferent important important important important Average Count Contains family/relevant to 38.5% (10) 30.8% (8) 15.4% (4) 15.4% (4) 0.0% (0) 2.08 26 family Contains friends/relevant to 30.8% (8) 23.1% (6) 19.2% (5) 26.9% (7) 0.0% (0) 2.42 26 friends Holiday destination 26.9% (7) 19.2% (5) 30.8% (8) 23.1% (6) 0.0% (0) 2.50 26 You personally like 0.0% (0) 7.7% (2) 3.8% (1) 23.1% (6) 65.4% (17) 4.46 26 the photo generally You personally think the photo is 0.0% (0) 7.7% (2) 23.1% (6) 61.5% (16) 7.7% (2) 3.69 26 technically accomplished You are interested in the opinion of other Flickr 11.5% (3) 19.2% (5) 23.1% (6) 38.5% (10) 7.7% (2) 3.12 26 members/photograp hers You want to share it with groups on the 15.4% (4) 15.4% (4) 30.8% (8) 30.8% (8) 7.7% (2) 3.00 26 subject None of the above. Please state why you choose to upload photos on Flickr: 4 answered question 26 skipped question 9 Other

1. it's a good place to organise and back up photos, tag them, search them, look for photos from similar events. it was good when blogging to talk about events and link to photos on flickr. good to share on facebook and websites with all the little flickr badges that are available too 2. I use flickr to share pictures with people to get feedback. this isn't through the normal manners such as groups or contacts. its all about private groups and discussing the edits etc 3. in addition to the above, it is the only place on the net with such a great and friendly userbase 4. as a 'storage' device. like a database.

3. As a member of Flickr, please could you rate how often you use the following the functions and social networking features of the website:

Rating Response Never Occasionally Regularly Always Average Count Tagging 3.8% (1) 19.2% (5) 19.2% (5) 57.7% (15) 3.31 26 Notes 23.1% (6) 69.2% (18) 7.7% (2) 0.0% (0) 1.85 26 70

3. As a member of Flickr, please could you rate how often you use the following the functions and social networking features of the website:

Favourite-ing 3.8% (1) 69.2% (18) 23.1% (6) 3.8% (1) 2.27 26 Commenting 0.0% (0) 53.8% (14) 46.2% (12) 0.0% (0) 2.46 26 Geotagging 30.8% (8) 42.3% (11) 23.1% (6) 3.8% (1) 2.00 26 Group discussion 19.2% (5) 26.9% (7) 50.0% (13) 3.8% (1) 2.38 26 boards Personal messaging 19.2% (5) 65.4% (17) 15.4% (4) 0.0% (0) 1.96 26 answered question 26 skipped question 9

Commenting on Flickr 1. How often would you say you comment on other people's photos? Response Response

Percent Count At least once a day 3.8% 1 At least once every couple of days 34.6% 9 At least once a week 26.9% 7 At least once a month 0.0% 0 Rarely 34.6% 9 Never 0.0% 0 answered question 26 skipped question 9

2. What tends to prompt you to comment on a photo on Flickr? (please select as many as applicable)

Response Response

Percent Count To comment on positive features of the photo 84.6% 22 To comment on negative features of the photo 7.7% 2 To find out more on the location of the photo 38.5% 10 To find out more on the subject of/in the photo 53.8% 14 To suggest technical improvements e.g. cropping, lens used 7.7% 2 To suggest style improvements e.g. camera angle, colour 7.7% 2 manipulation Do not comment 3.8% 1 Other (please specify) 30.8% 8 answered 26 question skipped question 9 Other

1. Social networking, ie commenting on contacts photos 2. generally my comments stem around the projects and not individual photographs. They hold small conversations which are spread across many images, groups and the real world. I do sometimes comment on my feelings of an image, usually to say that I like it, but never give negatives as I've found people don't actually like to hear the negatives. 3. to ask about use of specific equipment in a shot where it has been used

4. In a social capacity, I mostly comment on friends photos, to relive the joke or whatever. 5. response to previous comments left by friends 6.wanting to know how a certain effect is achived or what techniques were used. 7. Normally to say Hi after I've worked at the same event as another photographer 8. Depends on the person. If i know them then critiquing. If not then i'd only really comment if its a good pic.

3. What kind of comments would you say you have received since joining and sharing photos on Flickr (please select as many as appropriate) Response Response

Percent Count Positive comments 92.3% 24 Negative comments 11.5% 3 Constructive comments i.e. how to improve the photo 46.2% 12 Questions about the photo 65.4% 17 N/A 3.8% 1 Other (please specify) 23.1% 6 answered 26 question

Other

1. Invitation to add picture to a group 2. comments from friends who were at the same place 3. threats pointless comments but generally comments are just a skipped question 9 description of what the user sees in the image. 4. Group invitiations - to add the photo to a pool. Also, non- technical joke comments from friends who also use flickr. 5. requests for usage. queries about equipment used 6. All of the above. Though often they're pointless 'nice shot' comments or invites to groups i'm not interested in.

Receiving comments 1. Of the positive comments you received, were the comments focused on: (please select as many as appropriate. Tick N/A if question not applicable) Response Response

Percent Count Technical accomplishment 53.8% 14 Style 61.5% 16 Colours within the photo 50.0% 13 Camera type used (e.g. Holga/lomo, point and shoot, SLR) 15.4% 4 The person in the photo 34.6% 9 The view within the photo 61.5% 16 The subject of the photo 88.5% 23 The angle of the photo 38.5% 10 N/A 0.0% 0 Other (please specify) 15.4% 4 answered 26 question skipped question 9 Other

1. trying to persuade one to join a group 2. the series of images and project as a whole 3. originality 4. All of the above at some point or other

2. Of the negative comments, were the comments focused on: (Please tick as many as appropriable. Tick N/A if question not applicable) Response Response

Percent Count Technical accomplishment 15.4% 4 Style 7.7% 2 Colours in the photograph 3.8% 1 Camera used (e.g. holga/lomo/point and shoot/SLR) 0.0% 0 The person in the photo 3.8% 1 The view within the photo 7.7% 2 The subject of the photo 15.4% 4 The angle of the photo 3.8% 1 N/A 61.5% 16 Other (please specify) 15.4% 4 answered 26 question skipped question 9 Other:

1. cropping suggested, maybe not negative but constructive 2. threats! 3. Just down right rude on a couple of occasions 4. boringly all of em again

3. Of the "constructive" comments, were the comments focused on: (please select as many as appropriate. Tick N/A if not applicable) Response Response

Percent Count Technical accomplishment 46.2% 12 Style 23.1% 6 Colours within the photo 11.5% 3 Camera used 11.5% 3 The person in the photo (e.g. stance, expression, motion) 11.5% 3 The view within the photo (e.g. location) 26.9% 7 The subject of the photo (e.g. object, building, plant...) 26.9% 7 The angle of the photo 26.9% 7 N/A 34.6% 9 Other (please specify) 11.5% 3 answered 26 question skipped question 9

Other

1. composition 2. Composition 3. Which of two similar photos of the same subject was better. Composition, brightness and cropping of the photograph 4. Of the questions asked about your photo, were they focused on: (Please select as many as appropriate. Tick N/A if question is not relevant) Response Response

Percent Count Technical aspect of taking the photo 46.2% 12 Style of the photo 26.9% 7 Colours used (e.g. were they modified, did you use a filter etc) 19.2% 5 Camera used (e.g. holga, point and shoot, SLR lens etc) 30.8% 8 The person in the photo 23.1% 6 The view within the photo (e.g. location, area etc) 46.2% 12 The subject of the photo (the building, object, sky etc) 57.7% 15 The angle of the photo 11.5% 3 N/A 23.1% 6 Other (please specify) 0.0% 0 answered 26 question skipped 9 question

Final questions

1. Would comments/a comment on Flickr from another user be likely to influence your photographic practice? For example, would a comment suggesting an improvement to the lighting or editing within a photo you have uploaded be likely to influence how you take a similar photo in the future or influence your choice on whether a similar photo would be uploaded to your Flickr? Response Response

Percent Count Yes 23.1% 6 No 11.5% 3 Maybe 65.4% 17 answered question 26 skipped question 9 2. Please could you explain your answer to the previous question in the box below. Response

Count 26 answered question 26 skipped question 9

Other

1. it might influence how I took photos 2.. 3. I take photos of things that i'm interested in, not for anyone elses pleasure and if someone doesn't like my photos they don't have to look at them. you could meet alot of Flickr-ers at Woodhead demonstration on 2nd August 4. Flickr is an excellent place for learning so any suggestions would at least be explored as they could relate to something I hadn't considered. And then I may take the same sort of shot differently next time. 5. all comments are taken on board. I usually agree with them after consideration. 6. it would probably make me think about how I take photos in the future but wouldn't deter me from what I like to do best, at the end of the day it's just one persons opinion 7. I would take technical advice, and I would engage in an exchange about their thoughts on the photo, but in any occasion where the commenter is being patronising or derogatory I would disregard them as an internet trawler with nothing better to do! 8. if i thought it was a good idea being offered i'd be inclined to try it in future 9. Always willing to learn, if the commnet was reasonable I wouldn't just ignore it, and am not to arrogant to think my pics are perfect 10. Totally depends on the comment and who made it. I've had people recommend I do one thing which goes against the grain of the project and others have helped with little tips and even if I have though about it previously its just nice to get confirmation 11. I'm always looking for technical hints or taking onboard new ideas. I enjoy receiving help from others 12. Its easy, particularly with digital, to shoot off a couple of pictures of a scene without really taking the time to assess it properly. If someone points out a better option for technique or composition afterwards it helps you to consider those things more in future. Other photographer's suggestions are a great way to shortcut the 'trial and error' process of learning what works well and what doesn't. 13. Some times constructive critisism amd or advice is helpful. 14. I have fairly clear views on what I do and don't want to do in my photos, but sometimes I receive comments which I take on board and which improve my photographic practice. 15. I tend to ignore comments on post-processing of pictures as its something that I have little time to dedicate to. I'd prefer to learn how to use my camera properly to correct such things, thus comments on composition of the picture are of greater relevance, although these are less frequent than people saying "You should straighten/crop/tweak colurs/adjust levels/etc.” 16. it would depend on who the comment was rescieved from, i would look for similar shots in there work where they have done similar and if i like what examples of there advice i can find in there own work i may then try and do so myself 17. I definately would be influenced by constructive comments on my photos. I dont go as far as submitting my photos to groups, but if someone did drop by to suggest a way of getting a better shot in that situation, I'd really appreciate it. However, I think there is an etiquette where unless you have specifically added your photo to a group, people will not criticize (even constructively) your photo. Flickr has a lot of 'general' users, who upload holiday snaps, etc. So, in my experience, the number of general users getting criticism is low, unless specifically asked for. 18. Willingly, I responded with a maybe because I feel that such a comment, although potentially influencing my future photography, would not necessarily affect the type of photograph I upload. This is because the latter is dependent on a number of variables, of which the artistic quality is but one. Additionally, there are other sources of inspiration and influence (art galleries, photobooks, magazines, other photographers, friends' photos) that are perhaps more immediate. I feel that I have more of a relationship with these than I do flickr (although I admit that they are not all mutually exclusive) and therefore they are more likely to have a positive impact on my future photographic 75 practice. ta ra. 19. If I agree with the comments or respect the photographer then I am much more likely to be influenced by them. 20. i dont really know what to say! 21. It depends on who said it really. When I get a comment from someone who I don't know I tend to check who they are and what photographic background they're from; not to be rude but there's a difference between an opinion and genuine knowledge about photography. 22. I am still learning and could improve on a lot of things. I would be glad to recieve honest advice about my photographs. I would consider the advice of anyone, but whether I take it on board or ignore it would depend on whether or not I think it would lead to improvement. Good and bad are subjective so I may not agree with the advice just due to personal taste. 23. The photo after it has been taken becomes something else - it's the difference between being there and recording it for others to see after the event. 24. If the comments are useful or suggest something interesting then I could be inclined to try it 25. I tend to learn from experience, rather than from what others tell me 26. Depends if i respect the person offering the suggestion

Finished! 1. If you would be willing to participate in a short interview as a follow up to the results of this questionnaire please leave your email in this box below and I will email you with the details. The interview would again be focussed on the comments feature of Flickr, and would be likely to be conducted at your convenience by telephone. There is no obligation whatsoever to take part but would be of great use to my research! Many thanks again for participating! Response

Count

answered question 13 skipped question 22

8.3 Interview Questions

Areas of Discussion

Sheffield Group - Why did you become a member - Do you interact with other members? - Have you been to meets/know anyone personally on it -How do you mainly communicate? Discussion boards? Personal messages? Comments?

-What do you think of groups that give awards? Are you aware of such groups? - Annoying? Bit of fun? - Are you a member of a camera club or photographic society? - why? If not have you thought about joining one? - do you think Flickr might be similar to a camera club? What do you think the differences are?

Commenting -Do you comment at all? - whose photos do you tend to comment on? 1. ie. friends? Contacts? Random?

Do you like the comments feature of Flickr? - if so, what do you like about it? Useful? - if not, why? Prefer other methods? Get more info from other methods? Pointless comments?

- What kind of comments have you received? - positive? Negative? Hints? Questions? -

- How do you normally respond to comments? - do you always reply? Why?

- How do you feel about advice on taking photos from other members? - is it something you want? - do you ever take their advice?

- what kind of advice have you been given? - technical? Editing eg. Cropping?

- Finally, do you think Flickr has the capability to help improve peoples photography skills? - Has it changed yours at all? Do you think it could?

8.4 Flickr API

NSID FILE ISADMIN ISPRO ICONSERVER GENDER USERNAME REALNAME LOCATION ISSHEFFIELD FIRSTDATETAKEN PHOTOS GROUPS CONTACTS [email protected] 0 1 81 M blenky64 John Blenkinsopp 0 29/05/1965 16:23 362 17 28 [email protected] 0 1 43 M Jason_R 0 29/05/2003 16:21 437 70 100 [email protected] 0 1 1308 F Patricia Newton-Carline 0 01/06/2002 09:49 1520 89 16 [email protected] 0 0 148 *EmeraldSapphireGold* 0 0 16 54 [email protected] 0 1 130 M Tommy Sea 0 18/07/2004 16:17 229 69 10 [email protected] 0 1 44 F *tamara* Tamara Polajnar 0 27/01/2005 07:18 2292 89 84 [email protected] 0 1 131 My Lazy Itis 0 01/01/1949 00:00 400 33 11 [email protected] 0 1 138 F alleroo Alice HardmanSheffield, UK 1 20/02/2005 18:40 8982 19 161 [email protected] 0 1 2 m/f Snowbabies Paul & DebbieEngland 0 10/07/2004 11:41 1141 126 83 [email protected] 0 1 28 M sillypants Mike Smart Sheffield, England 1 26/08/2004 12:33 349 61 29 [email protected] 0 1 1320 @nomalie 0 30/12/2005 22:20 290 26 21 [email protected] 0 1 109 cfward 0 0 11 19 [email protected] 0 0 22 M tzunder Thomas ZunderSheffield, UK 1 28/06/2005 16:50 200 26 38 [email protected] 0 0 69 downthehillside 0 22/04/2005 11:17 5 3 0 [email protected] 0 1 52 M Zuchini Andrew TromanLeeds, UK 0 01/08/2004 04:57 1128 250 193 [email protected] 0 0 1258 illustration Coo coo Sheffield, United Kingdom 1 01/04/2006 17:43 110 217 605 [email protected] 0 0 119 M KCLam Lam KC Sheffield, United Kingdom 1 21/02/2005 06:09 202 48 65 [email protected] 0 1 147 M Bobshaw Pete 0 26/05/2000 08:21 2968 66 140 [email protected] 0 1 2040 F le pop noir Jessica Beth UK 0 22/01/2005 17:03 205 52 18 [email protected] 0 1 2417 M Birley Mick Mike / Mick / Michael 0 24/11/2006 21:36 297 1 1 [email protected] 0 0 2001 downloadist 0 01/01/2005 00:00 67 4 1 [email protected] 0 1 76 M NickCimini 0 11/04/2001 13:08 767 32 28 [email protected] 0 0 96 Flobadob 0 13/09/2006 16:00 38 42 0 [email protected] 0 0 3209 M matthematician 0 18/02/2007 13:17 40 3 4 [email protected] 0 1 143 M Joey 7 Sheffield, South Yorkshire, 1United01/01/1980 Kingdom 00:14 1910 451 814 [email protected] 0 1 23 M Godmeister Craig Burrows Nottingham, United Kingdom0 (Reino15/02/2003 Unido, Royaume 06:32 Uni) 279 186 27 [email protected] 0 1 43 M ianapplegate.co.ukIan ApplegateLondon, UK 0 15/05/2005 16:16 2335 186 84 [email protected] 0 0 97 mjl2000_uk Sheffield, UK 1 02/05/2004 10:59 118 14 1 [email protected] 0 0 165 M M D Hudson 0 01/02/2003 22:52 200 122 65 [email protected] 0 1 148 Johnson CamerafaceJohnson Cameraface 0 01/01/2007 03:32 1258 142 70 [email protected] 0 1 12 Faunagraphic 0 01/01/2002 00:00 797 210 270 [email protected] 0 1 1429 M ClivRow Clive Rowland Chesterfield, UK 0 24/05/2003 07:47 274 44 51 [email protected] 0 0 2098 Samara_Casewell 0 01/05/2007 18:32 35 4 13 [email protected] 0 1 106 M jkpaul Paul Johnston-KnightOld Thorpe Audlin, U.K. 0 14/04/2006 21:03 293 203 55 [email protected] 0 0 2218 M fabian9 Fabian Bauer Horsham, United Kingdom 0 25/12/2007 22:19 13 3 2 [email protected] 0 1 148 M wyrdfish David Watson Sheffield, UK 1 29/05/2004 14:20 1331 5 10 [email protected] 0 1 59 F Cosmic_Sarah Sarah Hartley Sheffield, UK 1 11/08/2002 15:19 418 4 5 [email protected] 0 1 3 M daveodroid David Derbyshire, UK 0 06/12/2004 13:00 344 26 11 [email protected] 0 0 1264 M hitchhiker_1980 Justin SeamanSheffield, UK 1 31/08/2007 20:12 139 62 21 [email protected] 0 1 85 M .Pete. pete ford 0 29/08/2005 01:05 3229 107 50 [email protected] 0 1 39 M Northern Soul Nick Evans South Yorkshire, United Kingdom0 01/12/1976 00:00 557 64 32 [email protected] 0 0 3043 prescottspies 0 01/10/2004 13:59 83 1 3 [email protected] 0 1 11 F katyarobin Katya Robin 0 13/04/2000 03:05 277 26 17 [email protected] 0 0 3275 M harry_nl 0 17/03/1997 13:39 200 163 6 [email protected] 0 1 3134 toaster lover 0 01/01/2000 06:31 147 4 1 [email protected] 0 0 190 VooDoDog 0 04/02/2003 13:34 9 19 9 [email protected] 0 0 134 doddie79 0 05/05/2007 22:28 199 178 82 [email protected] 0 1 2378 M veggiesosage Andy Nottingham, UK 0 21/02/2006 22:52 337 136 8 [email protected] 0 0 122 everythingstops.co.uk Sheffield, UK 1 21/01/2006 15:03 77 1 3 [email protected] 0 1 2115 M hook 85 Dan WoodhouseSheffield, United Kingdom 1 20/02/2005 16:20 469 4 15 [email protected] 0 1 52 M Mark Hadley Mark Hadley Sheffield, UK 1 07/04/2007 13:07 35 1 12 [email protected] 0 0 52 ruby_applecake 0 08/03/2006 08:40 28 3 3 [email protected] 0 1 2359 F octoberskies claire mae southyorkshire, England 0 06/03/2006 11:37 70 139 28 [email protected] 0 0 57 essenceofrennet Essence de RennetScotland 0 21/02/2004 14:00 63 21 1 [email protected] 0 1 187 M johnrobertson87 John RobertsonSheffield, England 1 25/03/2007 15:08 26 7 5 [email protected] 0 0 1145 ceedee1 0 22/10/2005 14:38 200 138 40 [email protected] 0 0 49 M Reminiscence Hermes Tokyo, Japan 0 08/10/2006 02:11 174 18 18 [email protected] 0 0 3085 M jbeighton Joel Beighton 0 16/08/2006 14:43 121 1 3 [email protected] 0 1 17 M thegreatgonzo Tony Kennick Sheffield, United Kingdom 1 23/06/2002 16:25 4040 13 50 [email protected] 0 0 202 Evil Dr Neil 0 29/04/2007 09:53 35 20 17 [email protected] 0 0 159 M The one next doorOliver Sheffield / Derby, England 1 26/02/2007 00:00 159 38 7 [email protected] 0 0 1 DavidBench Birmingham, UK 0 14/07/2003 17:21 131 39 18 [email protected] 0 1 19 M campdavemorecambeDave Martin Morecambe 0 28/01/2001 22:09 2381 372 12 [email protected] 0 1 64 M Thrash Merchant James Lawrence 0 03/01/2004 17:19 246 364 44 [email protected] 0 0 129 M eckaflx Edward PennySheffield, England 1 06/01/2003 15:53 43 33 17 [email protected] 0 1 2045 rikj 0 05/01/2004 01:45 1117 207 116 [email protected] 0 1 51 Digital.Knave 0 11/09/2004 13:08 1006 77 78 [email protected] 0 1 2140 M marksweb Mark Walker Sheffield, UK 1 24/02/2003 13:37 312 21 15 [email protected] 0 1 170 kev747 0 11/05/2002 19:07 2026 404 169 [email protected] 0 0 4 F bilblio Celeste Stalybridge, UK 0 01/01/2003 00:00 190 65 37 [email protected] 0 1 1 F knautia Sarah Bristol, England 0 01/01/1952 00:00 13444 197 384 [email protected] 0 1 229 M Jay Bees Pics (in & out) 0 09/02/1992 17:22 325 446 110 [email protected] 0 1 1172 Paramedix 0 23/11/2002 10:15 535 52 37 [email protected] 0 1 13 M StubbsUK Stuart GrimshawSheffield, UK 1 26/12/2002 15:20 676 173 72 [email protected] 0 1 2270 F giddykipper11 Claire MarsdenSheffield 1 24/08/2005 23:36 188 107 26 [email protected] 0 1 150 M andyjakeman Andy Jakeman 0 01/01/2005 12:17 1234 23 17 [email protected] 0 1 135 M uniB Dav T Sheffield, UK 1 01/01/2005 00:00 220 230 131 [email protected] 0 0 2087 M James Almond James AlmondSheffield, UK 1 01/05/2008 18:27 19 1 1 [email protected] 0 1 153 M Delay Tactics Christian Sheffield, S Yorks, England1 20/09/2004 23:22 184 68 47 [email protected] 0 0 104 M Gabriel Heley Gabriel Heley Sheffield, UK 1 04/02/2006 03:21 199 19 35 [email protected] 0 1 2143 F sara chic sara adlam 0 03/08/2007 17:18 445 55 21 [email protected] 0 0 1264 M carvenwong Tark Heng Sheffield, United Kingdom 1 05/09/2007 08:25 200 214 254 [email protected] 0 1 1016 M mtomaszewski1979 0 14/03/2006 10:03 351 21 5 [email protected] 0 0 15 M S:D Simon Colchester, United Kindgom0 25/06/2005 09:39 73 14 25 [email protected] 0 0 3136 Fletch_81 0 15/03/2007 15:25 46 21 0 [email protected] 0 0 88 M Mr Mollusk Carl Rose Sheffield 1 01/01/1980 00:01 123 3 10 [email protected] 0 1 1 M Pip Phil Wilson Bristol, UK 0 30/06/2003 20:31 3382 46 60 [email protected] 0 1 1 M Dan Sumption Dan Sumption Sheffield, UK 1 01/12/1993 12:00 1264 129 181 [email protected] 0 1 1076 Che Smith 0 06/06/2004 22:14 158 43 14 [email protected] 0 0 34 M fade to grey Tom Moor Sheffield, United Kingdom 1 27/09/2005 00:11 55 20 4 [email protected] 0 1 28 M JamesB James BoardwellSheffield, UK 1 02/08/2003 22:29 916 59 136 [email protected] 0 1 28 Matt Lollar Sheffield, England 1 21/01/2005 10:39 302 42 106 [email protected] 0 0 3189 F kristuzha cristina ruiz mexico 0 24/03/2003 15:28 166 8 43 [email protected] 0 0 52 M TOm0 Tomoko MaddocksWorksop, Notts 0 06/05/2006 16:54 37 6 1 [email protected] 0 0 88 stvnclftn 0 0 1 0 [email protected] 0 1 26 M ZekiZeki Rob Smart Southampton, UK 0 25/12/2003 12:53 563 300 321 [email protected] 0 1 10 F Veebl Victoria BensleySheffield Yorkshire, UK 1 22/06/2002 19:50 6762 51 35 [email protected] 0 0 2243 quicksilver8 Sheffield, United Kingdom 1 28/09/2007 10:01 62 22 0 [email protected] 0 0 23 M Sheffielder Jonathan Barnaby 0 04/01/2003 15:08 75 2 1 [email protected] 0 1 111 The Revolution UK 0 04/07/2003 08:37 207 70 39 [email protected] 0 1 85 M toxophilite Ross Bowman London, United Kingdom 0 19/01/2004 11:30 312 40 20 [email protected] 0 1 2231 absidian 0 10/01/2003 18:45 341 21 33 [email protected] 0 1 1 Earthwatcher 0 01/03/1964 00:00 832 138 66 [email protected] 0 0 22 F ickle claire Claire Marston 0 01/01/2004 13:14 200 6 11 [email protected] 0 1 95 M sf2london Mark AtkinsonLondon, UK 0 30/06/2006 15:03 1893 133 65 [email protected] 0 0 1 M Claudio Claudio German√†Switzerland 0 0 1 1 [email protected] 0 1 21 M Steve@Pilsley Steve & AshleyPilsley, FairburnDerbyshire, UK 0 02/08/2003 11:06 633 23 14 [email protected] 0 0 83 M thomc Thom ClutterbuckSheffield, UK 1 09/10/2004 11:31 200 3 6 [email protected] 0 1 41 mafleen 0 01/06/1976 00:00 10082 950 300 [email protected] 0 0 169 mbatey 0 04/07/2006 15:31 58 5 2 [email protected] 0 0 3027 pininsho 0 28/07/2007 09:44 130 1 0 [email protected] 0 1 1341 liwenli liwen li Taiwan 0 03/11/1999 21:26 810 183 169 [email protected] 0 1 1 M qwertyuiop Martin GriffithsLondon, UK 0 24/09/2002 12:24 2569 150 118 [email protected] 0 0 3109 snowyswife 0 01/03/2006 21:20 72 44 3 [email protected] 0 0 1251 M mslrman Craig EmersonSouthampton, England 0 01/01/2001 00:00 203 180 126 [email protected] 0 0 11 F jennywooyay Jenny London, UK 0 16/07/2006 11:39 187 149 11 [email protected] 0 1 2246 M *Simon* Simon Todd United Kingdom 0 30/08/2007 13:43 77 68 115 [email protected] 0 1 53 +Andrea+ 0 25/02/2005 22:32 195 3 1 [email protected] 0 1 202 M dust_science Martin Dust Sheffield, England 1 07/01/2007 12:08 435 2 7 [email protected] 0 1 37 M danorak Dan Jones Sheffield, UK 1 15/02/2004 13:23 419 11 35 [email protected] 0 1 2317 Mf Sam&Vash Sam And Vashti 0 22/01/2008 06:00 469 17 14 [email protected] 0 0 21 M captainadventure Jonathan BarnabyGreat Britain 0 01/01/1933 00:00 197 26 512 [email protected] 0 1 1181 ashokmandy Ashok Brussels, Belgium 0 11/07/2005 13:43 595 173 41 [email protected] 0 1 56 th3g 0 09/04/2006 03:56 380 219 202 [email protected] 0 0 146 M manual_focus Joseph RowlandStaveley, UK 0 27/01/2007 12:53 162 28 33 [email protected] 0 1 48 M soopadoubled Ian Halliday Chesterfield, UK 0 26/02/2001 23:44 318 60 44 [email protected] 0 1 1 F Louise Oldfield Louise OldfieldLondon, UK 0 28/08/2003 15:33 1491 34 141 [email protected] 0 1 103 Art Sheffield AmbassadorsSheffield Contemporary Art Forum: Ambassador0 16/09/2005 Scheme 17:57 336 2 4 [email protected] 0 1 1160 F jadeching Jade Ching Sheffield, England 1 26/03/2004 19:39 885 39 19 [email protected] 0 1 2398 M Jawad Qasrawi Jawad Qasrawi 0 15/02/2005 17:28 775 54 9 [email protected] 0 1 21 evissa 0 16/12/2005 22:00 4801 175 33 [email protected] 0 0 101 Bonebox 0 0 18 4 [email protected] 0 1 27 M sic_nick Nick Breen Sheffield, England 1 01/01/2005 13:14 35 12 2 [email protected] 0 1 4 F Dr Joolz DrJoolz Sheffield, United KIngdom 1 02/12/2002 03:10 1696 323 121 [email protected] 0 0 1094 M hairy_rob Rob Salmon Hull, England 0 28/11/2007 13:21 200 61 212 [email protected] 0 0 127 apt Sheffield, UK 1 01/01/1996 00:02 186 16 11 [email protected] 0 1 189 Alex Veitch UK 0 04/02/2002 00:02 247 78 17 [email protected] 0 1 39 M Ben Askew Ben Askew Sheffield, United Kingdom 1 18/08/2003 22:26 1029 24 68 [email protected] 0 0 8 F thenetnat Natalie Zee Sheffield, England 1 03/06/2006 12:15 4 23 72 [email protected] 0 1 3123 M gchq900 Steve 0 07/03/2008 09:15 48 8 2 [email protected] 0 1 1 suburbandk 0 11/05/2004 20:16 1612 405 412 [email protected] 0 0 55 M ben_jones_simpsonsfan 0 02/07/2005 10:11 60 43 7 [email protected] 0 1 5 Ida No UK 0 01/01/1910 00:00 639 3 15 [email protected] 0 0 46 indigo_raj Doncaster, UK 0 31/03/2005 21:52 42 31 97 [email protected] 0 1 111 M Doilum Ben Austwick London, UK 0 04/04/2004 16:06 1216 326 124 [email protected] 0 0 36 M Outofafrica1 David Gillott 0 29/12/2001 12:09 160 14 29 [email protected] 0 0 154 F franniepan 0 24/10/2004 01:20 199 3 11 [email protected] 0 0 1337 mmssrrll 0 26/10/2006 08:58 2 2 1 [email protected] 0 1 107 M ChipButty Tom Portland, Oregon, US 0 03/05/2003 21:49 188 28 22

[email protected] 0 0 142 M Dr Dob Adam Dobson 0 ### 81 56 [email protected] 0 1 88 M Martin WatsonMartin WatsonMacclesfield, UK 0 ### 428 104 [email protected] 0 1 175 M willboase Will Boase Sheffield, UK 1 ### 403 5 [email protected] 0 1 1199 M 2thin2swim Steve Dodds Sheffield, England 1 ### 157 42 [email protected] 0 0 27 M Wild Tiger Neil Franklin Jakarta, Indonesia 0 ### 21 122 [email protected] 0 1 2204 M Hamed ParhamHamed ParhamSheffield, UK 1 ### 85 86 [email protected] 0 1 29 F marmite.k kate finland 0 ### 1414 149 [email protected] 0 1 1150 M ianloasby Ian Loasby 0 ### 650 2 [email protected] 0 1 1258 dillo-h.com 0 ### 1230 258 [email protected] 0 1 2403 M robGTi Robert Mitchell 0 ### 1300 7 [email protected] 0 0 161 M ManInBlue Tony King People's Republic of China 0 ### 101 516 [email protected] 0 0 2095 F tri_angle 0 ### 117 88 [email protected] 0 1 2 M russelljsmith Russell James London,Smith England 0 ### 9404 309 [email protected] 0 0 106 M Paul MatthewmanPaul Matthewman 0 ### 82 26 [email protected] 0 1 32 M lucasdigital Mark Lucas Sheffield, UK 1 ### 3544 76 [email protected] 0 1 26 M earthfromthegroundRichard HarrisonCoventry, UK 0 ### 3120 169 [email protected] 0 1 199 jb303 0 ### 597 39 [email protected] 0 0 44 F Sparkly Pink Princess's Photos 0 ### 188 2 [email protected] 0 1 1020 alfonsodeseo Sheffield 1 ### 380 75 [email protected] 0 1 3144 M StarquakeUK Paul Cantrell Sheffield, United Kingdom 1 0000-00-00 00:00:00 617 100 [email protected] 0 1 227 Fassing Pancy 0 ### 322 53 [email protected] 0 1 90 wojtek gurak woju sheffield, united kingdom 1 ### 613 56 [email protected] 0 0 36 M andrewhowat Andrew HowatSheffield, England 1 ### 118 2 [email protected] 0 1 33 vegaway 0 ### 3773 112 [email protected] 0 0 33 M luton man Jason Wilson Brisbane, Australia 0 ### 104 23 [email protected] 0 0 160 M Alex Euzenat Alex Euzenat La Rochelle, France 0 ### 83 7 [email protected] 0 1 208 F Jenny SadowskiJenny Lee United Kingdom 0 ### 245 6 [email protected] 0 1 94 M slyinthedam Simon Day 0 ### 302 5 [email protected] 0 1 1232 F Lady Wulfrun Claire Nottingham, England 0 ### 1767 374 [email protected] 0 1 42 F L-plate big cheeseOlga PavlovskyCambridge, UK 0 ### 1771 231 [email protected] 0 0 25 F KezEye Kerry David HucknallUK 0 ### 121 3 [email protected] 0 0 90 acme01 0 ### 117 51 [email protected] 0 1 39 M DavidTrin David TrindadeSheffield, United Kingdom 1 ### 1606 20 [email protected] 0 0 94 skyfitsboy 0 ### 92 14 [email protected] 0 0 28 M Zaka Tom SzekeresSheffield, UK 1 ### 58 23 [email protected] 0 1 148 Shunklies 0 ### 1190 54 [email protected] 0 0 169 tillfrog 0 ### 55 1 [email protected] 0 0 55 brian2010 0 ### 46 22 [email protected] 0 1 2150 paul_nelson_lx 0 ### 273 35 [email protected] 0 1 5 daviddave 0 ### 3518 147 [email protected] 0 0 2005 33L 0 ### 30 31 [email protected] 0 0 177 dmarsh451 0 ### 196 114 [email protected] 0 0 3088 M Justin El Justin Sane UK 0 ### 149 1 [email protected] 0 1 56 M ..:CMYK:.. Chris Black Sheffield, UK 1 ### 651 140 [email protected] 0 0 2049 M jt138 John North East, UK 0 ### 200 48 [email protected] 0 1 3 M Natman Nathan LivingsLeicester, UK 0 ### 820 467 [email protected] 0 1 28 F Bezant Sue Sheffield, UK 1 ### 5685 22 [email protected] 0 0 144 M robforrest Rob Sheffield 1 ### 15 3 [email protected] 0 1 7 M Trois T√™tes Gareth(TT) Sheffield, UK 1 ### 1872 422 [email protected] 0 1 144 FloppyBoot 0 ### 2799 104 [email protected] 0 1 45 M refusejesus Tim Morris Leicester, UK 0 ### 1009 10 [email protected] 0 1 8 M ginmakesamanmeantimothy bennettCrackney, London 0 ### 1547 7 [email protected] 0 0 2287 M Jim Horsfall Jim Horsfall 0 ### 132 97 [email protected] 0 1 23 M Chris Willis Chris Willis Sheffield, UK 1 ### 1354 5 [email protected] 0 1 26 M afterforty - awayRay Holden UK 0 ### 1032 101 [email protected] 0 1 2150 Maskedmarble 0 ### 172 7 [email protected] 0 1 94 steelisgrey 0 ### 616 6 [email protected] 0 0 1 monofiz 0 ### 104 3 [email protected] 0 0 6 Tom Moffatt 0 ### 195 8 [email protected] 0 1 3188 F Nanfan Nana Louise NielsenSheffield, UK 1 ### 71 11 [email protected] 0 0 177 lewisskinner 0 ### 200 2 [email protected] 0 1 2293 M brabster Paul Brabban 0 ### 142 16 [email protected] 0 1 4 M Steve Roe Steve Roe Oxford, previously Hull, UK 0 ### 4157 286 [email protected] 0 0 1231 Omur K. 0 ### 70 21 [email protected] 0 0 63 M rxspn Edward MarshallSheffield, UK 1 ### 26 48 [email protected] 0 0 1090 F jesstram1976 Vicky Fitzsimons 0 ### 188 25 [email protected] 0 1 9 F *Debs* Debs England 0 ### 684 110 [email protected] 0 0 35 M steve_benwaySteve Worksop, UK 0 ### 162 122 [email protected] 0 1 51 M Coupey Paul Coupe Sheffield, United Kingdom 1 ### 3847 13 [email protected] 0 0 17 F Amy Alldis Amy Alldis 0 ### 97 69 [email protected] 0 1 2213 Mysticmogg Sheffield, England 1 ### 1601 128 [email protected] 0 0 158 M spen_zord Spencer HobbsSpalding, UK 0 ### 95 57 [email protected] 0 1 136 M Harry Halibut andy pettigrewSheffield, UK 1 ### 2653 385 [email protected] 0 0 1052 JamesSilvester 0 ### 4 2 [email protected] 0 0 166 M Jealously Blue Garry Lee Derbyshire/High Peak, UK 0 ### 120 220 [email protected] 0 0 3121 M darrenmwinterDarren Winter 0 ### 35 16 [email protected] 0 1 65 M Chris Tait Christopher TaitEngland 0 ### 1059 186 [email protected] 0 1 23 willsdad Sheffield, United Kingdom 1 ### 2329 226 [email protected] 0 0 2134 herminehaller 0 ### 161 111 [email protected] 0 0 1008 M mgee1 Mike Sheffield, UK 1 ### 38 6 [email protected] 0 1 143 JonTait2002 0 ### 1459 253 [email protected] 0 1 2325 tom D80 0 ### 5 10 [email protected] 0 0 225 M dhtgohj TREVOR TOMLINSheffield, England 1 ### 20 4 [email protected] 0 1 2244 M ErhuDave David Chang Sheffield, United Kingdom 1 ### 437 128 [email protected] 0 1 2121 M abutler Alex Butler Sheffield, England 1 ### 157 200 [email protected] 0 1 2056 sjs.sheffield 0 ### 529 184 [email protected] 0 1 117 Rich Jacques 0 ### 166 21 [email protected] 0 0 3207 alidanum 0 ### 93 9 [email protected] 0 1 2418 F Three-Legged-Cat Sheffield, United Kingdom 1 ### 708 11 [email protected] 0 0 171 Bruno Postle 0 ### 200 8 [email protected] 0 1 21 M chrisgarrett Chris Garrett Armpit of the universe, England .. for0 now ### 2850 112 [email protected] 0 1 90 M Dave JG (mostlyDavid offline) Glaves near Exeter, Devon, UK 0 ### 1400 589 [email protected] 0 0 65 frozenswirl Brisbane, Australia 0 ### 146 83 [email protected] 0 0 21 soulsurf_ England 0 ### 26 4 [email protected] 0 0 2165 jbonassin London, UK 0 ### 129 43 [email protected] 0 0 1210 kevt3747 0 ### 147 86 [email protected] 0 0 2378 ToneRay London, England 0 ### 67 46 [email protected] 0 0 3131 the-iBlog 0 ### 39 9 [email protected] 0 1 1338 Scippy England 0 ### 168 618 [email protected] 0 1 1316 F Michelle E. Newton-CarlineMichelle Newton-United Carline Kingdom 0 ### 221 140 [email protected] 0 1 1424 M james_c_mattisonJames MattisonDubai, United Arab Emirates 0 ### 62 54 [email protected] 0 0 106 sjcprojects 0 ### 194 34 [email protected] 0 0 1379 mobicious 0 0 3 [email protected] 0 1 1 F zannah reed Zannah Reed Lexington, KY, USA 0 ### 508 74 [email protected] 0 1 1013 JDvB {Lilbix} 0 ### 875 262 [email protected] 0 0 90 M seanwhipps Sean Whipps Minneapolis 0 ### 60 20 [email protected] 0 1 57 M polandeze Andrew Sheffield, UK 1 ### 1327 120 [email protected] 0 0 2305 Original Didi 0 ### 77 6 [email protected] 0 1 89 Bryan Ledgard Yorkshire, UK 0 ### 2199 78 [email protected] 0 1 53 M iandolphin24 Ian Dolphin Hull, UK 0 ### 575 227 [email protected] 0 1 1011 M boarderstu Stu SKlinar Sheffield, United Kingdom 1 ### 680 46 [email protected] 0 1 55 M random_dave:Ben film Lancasterfor sale England 0 ### 797 53 [email protected] 0 0 2377 F paid to smile Camille HollenbeckCambridge, England 0 ### 154 123 [email protected] 0 0 1026 F nuttykiddo Sofie Sheffield, UK 1 ### 201 58 [email protected] 0 0 2389 Neville Humm 0 ### 117 6 [email protected] 0 0 92 slud 0 ### 67 4 [email protected] 0 1 187 Darren Copley Sheffield 1 ### 1056 14 [email protected] 0 1 161 Evil Yoda 0 ### 4135 16 [email protected] 0 1 166 J L M 0 ### 428 120 [email protected] 0 0 2060 Rocket01UK Rocket sheffield, UK 1 ### 200 29 [email protected] 0 0 1328 caryevolving 0 ### 185 74 [email protected] 0 1 2014 jbobvw J Meltham 0 ### 358 61 [email protected] 0 0 161 M Qi-Guang Qi-Guang Chew 0 ### 182 7 [email protected] 0 1 107 Taylor World 0 ### 1745 2 [email protected] 0 1 65 M Rob Grant Rob Grant Sheffield, United Kingdom 1 ### 175 136 [email protected] 0 0 2156 M spoon_graphicsChris Spooner 0 ### 22 16 [email protected] 0 0 101 M Harry Grout Harry Grout 0 ### 8 4 [email protected] 0 1 31 purplespace 0 ### 7693 109 [email protected] 0 1 216 loulrc 0 ### 1278 39 [email protected] 0 1 88 M IsThatKid Mark Gilbert Sheffield, United Kingdom 1 ### 1174 13 [email protected] 0 1 92 M robinbyles robin byles 0 ### 3100 13 [email protected] 0 0 24 M stevearrison Steve HarrisonSheffield, United Kingdom 1 ### 41 6 [email protected] 0 0 55 M Marcus.2006 Marcus MehtaSheffield, UK 1 ### 14 3 [email protected] 0 1 70 buildings fan 0 ### 5079 287 [email protected] 0 1 2125 taurus_mick19 0 ### 40 3 [email protected] 0 1 199 M ShaneRounce.comShane Design Rounce andDinnington, Photography Sheffield / Rotherham, United1 Kingdom### 853 75 [email protected] 0 1 49 M geospace Jonathan RatnageUK 0 ### 433 73 [email protected] 0 1 7 M PiAir (Old Skool)Pierre GorissenNetherlands 0 ### 4947 8 [email protected] 0 0 2205 F Just Like a WomanCamille Hollenbeck 0 ### 17 162 [email protected] 0 1 1 M Kevin HutchinsonKevin HutchinsonPuerto Escondido, Mexico 0 ### 1485 18 [email protected] 0 0 230 F signature photographsEmma BothamleySheffield, England 1 ### 161 11 [email protected] 0 1 3162 M Crashmatt Matt G 0 ### 2094 75 [email protected] 0 1 55 Haysie1 Wakefield, United Kingdom 0 ### 1609 148 [email protected] 0 1 1256 genghis.postlethwaite 0 ### 359 63 [email protected] 0 0 3 M Deltic Paul Store 0 ### 107 3 [email protected] 0 1 47 loose_grip_99 UK 0 ### 2365 537 [email protected] 0 1 127 Katy Snaps Serendipity PhotographySheffield, UK 1 ### 1522 157 [email protected] 0 1 2091 M if the shoe fitz!Sean FitzpatrickHull 0 ### 191 4 [email protected] 0 1 3120 M johnnyg1955 John Leeds, England 0 ### 370 282 [email protected] 0 0 2332 F minx_sheff Helen UK 0 ### 159 12

[email protected] 0 0 42 deeks_simon 0 0 1 0 [email protected] 0 0 138 F annie101 Anna Westaway 0 04/03/2006 17:11 19 4 2 [email protected] 0 1 119 M Dan LXIX Danny MonaghanHope Valley, Derbyshire, UK0 05/08/2004 14:53 294 75 18 [email protected] 0 1 46 Teckie Kev Castle Donington, UK 0 01/01/1978 00:00 1245 229 52 [email protected] 0 1 53 Fray Bentos Fray Bentos Suffolk, England 0 19/01/2003 01:29 1776 198 21 [email protected] 0 0 106 F judeastone Jude Stone Sheffield, UK 1 02/09/2004 11:25 200 2 8 [email protected] 0 1 139 caz m 0 04/01/2000 10:47 233 6 3 [email protected] 0 1 214 apwbATTACK 0 05/03/2003 09:41 2951 122 230 [email protected] 0 0 1391 M Martin Rose Martin Rose Sheffield, United Kingdom 1 04/09/2007 13:21 158 9 11 [email protected] 0 0 200 Jim Beachcomber 0 25/05/2003 17:56 105 6 0 [email protected] 0 1 48 F Jen and Mutley Jen Williams UK 0 01/02/1982 00:00 1063 118 140 [email protected] 0 1 3043 madeinsheffield 0 22/05/1995 20:55 1502 98 513 [email protected] 0 0 3283 Lord Kitchster Sheffield, England 1 31/07/2007 22:35 67 115 36 [email protected] 0 0 1177 M m_markhan Matt MarkhamSHEFFIELD, England 1 03/01/2003 00:10 123 9 4 [email protected] 0 0 182 F topupthetea Kate Sheffield, UK 1 06/02/2007 13:35 198 133 322 [email protected] 0 1 42 M DESQie David Squire Sheffield, UK 1 05/10/2004 15:47 578 16 39 [email protected] 0 0 67 M shovel.monkey Dan Ratcliffe Sheffield, S.Yorks, Britain 1 21/01/2004 18:50 18 5 0 [email protected] 0 1 151 [Jim] Zurich, Switzerland 0 27/12/2006 22:07 152 198 62 [email protected] 0 0 1350 M dark_peak Richard Houghton 0 27/07/2001 16:33 94 10 7 [email protected] 0 1 1041 M diavolo_felice Scott Sheffield, UK 1 01/01/2003 12:00 1430 150 362 [email protected] 0 0 172 M wyeaye84 Phil Wye Nottingham, UK 0 26/04/2005 14:50 155 61 16 [email protected] 0 0 2340 M mission.control Aidan R. Sheffield, England 1 09/12/2006 20:42 59 1 14 [email protected] 0 0 2394 M jonnybutcher Jonathan ButcherSheffield, UK 1 06/12/2007 13:01 35 33 11 [email protected] 0 1 23 M danekdanek Dan Carroll Sheffield, UK 1 27/12/2002 12:25 306 37 61 [email protected] 0 1 29 M saulcoz Saul Cozens 0 29/09/2001 15:45 403 11 22 [email protected] 0 1 38 M paolo m√†rgari Paolo ƒ±…π…ê∆É…π…êWLecce, Italy 0 20/11/2005 19:40 787 319 679 [email protected] 0 1 2179 snomed3 Sheffield, UK 1 04/03/2003 11:18 327 63 193 [email protected] 0 1 75 M wmmmk Wojciech Kowalski 0 01/01/2000 21:44 206 203 73 [email protected] 0 1 110 M Orge James Argyle Sheffield, United Kingdom 1 20/04/2006 22:49 100 18 9 [email protected] 0 1 1197 F Mrs Pottinger Elizabeth PottingerSheffield, United Kingdom 1 01/12/2004 11:26 601 42 17 [email protected] 0 0 47 F charlotte.stacey Charlotte StaceySheffield, UK 1 27/01/2004 09:13 11 7 9 [email protected] 0 0 128 F shes.ablade Frances DuncanSheffield, UK 1 01/05/2005 00:00 86 1 7 [email protected] 0 1 3149 M pale enigma Thomas FisherSheffield, England 1 01/01/1970 00:00 37 71 15 [email protected] 0 1 2106 sallers 0 30/08/2005 11:55 330 77 111 [email protected] 0 1 71 M beatdrifter Andy Holmes London, United Kingdom 0 28/12/2002 15:07 2508 182 91 [email protected] 0 1 2204 M neilc76 Neil Carter 0 10/12/2006 08:53 46 151 60 [email protected] 0 0 3045 M just_john john facenfieldberlin 0 08/06/1999 01:17 131 30 12 [email protected] 0 1 2055 M Matt Worthington Matt WorthingtonSheffield, England 1 20/06/2005 11:34 679 7 4 [email protected] 0 0 22 F Thrift Sheila Curzon 0 30/10/2006 22:21 200 32 32 [email protected] 0 1 1171 M Jon W. Howson Jon Howson Sheffield, UK 1 17/07/2007 13:08 249 97 70 [email protected] 0 1 73 polly.jayne - being a grown-up-person for a bit 0 01/01/1912 00:00 3340 90 101 [email protected] 0 0 6 M coxamcoxam Andrew Cox Sheffield, UK 1 29/09/2005 10:05 109 40 29 [email protected] 0 0 1106 unnecessaryangel 0 19/07/2008 23:48 1 1 3 [email protected] 0 1 205 anitasheffield 0 02/01/2005 08:30 142 6 22 [email protected] 0 1 5 roobarbs Roobarb 0 01/10/2001 00:00 5832 48 68 [email protected] 0 1 116 pawprintz 0 07/10/2006 21:00 296 9 2 [email protected] 0 1 198 ::stromberg [::no videosstromberg on my photostream::]poland (for now) 0 12/03/2005 11:00 402 411 1630 [email protected] 0 1 32 Running in Suffolk bury blue Bury St Edmunds, England 0 30/07/2004 00:24 7421 361 122 [email protected] 0 0 1059 bodiejooth Sheffield 1 26/10/2005 19:13 103 10 21 [email protected] 0 1 3097 M Richard Brown AKARichard Ricbro85 BrownBradford, UK, Yorkshire 0 02/10/2007 15:23 2205 42 45 [email protected] 0 0 1280 Pitsmoor 0 25/06/2007 05:58 43 1 0 [email protected] 0 1 89 M georgi mabee Georgi Mabee Peterborough, UK 0 09/01/1970 00:06 700 69 102 [email protected] 0 1 1106 babka_babka 0 04/02/2007 09:14 697 718 296 [email protected] 0 1 4 F neuroticcamel Elaine Sheffield, England 1 18/12/2001 13:13 265 7 9 [email protected] 0 1 31 fishyfish_arcade Sheffield, UK 1 01/01/2002 00:00 581 209 81 [email protected] 0 0 143 dancingell 0 01/01/2005 00:00 106 1 4 [email protected] 0 1 125 M cewad Chris Sheffield, England 1 06/09/2005 14:11 68 84 12 [email protected] 0 0 153 pdclough 0 10/12/2006 17:57 155 4 1 [email protected] 0 0 26 M andy.d Andy DavidsonSheffield, UK 1 30/09/2006 21:39 200 66 68 [email protected] 0 1 3 M Jim Barter Jim Barter sheffield, uk 1 18/02/2005 10:03 2560 328 53 [email protected] 0 1 2146 F silvergreyhound Heather Daventry, England 0 27/08/2005 13:30 150 46 10 [email protected] 0 1 3245 Snotz Derbyshire, England 0 23/02/2008 16:35 200 143 101 [email protected] 0 1 6 M ClydeHouse Karl Newell Sheffield, United Kingdom 1 01/01/1966 00:00 4472 46 25 [email protected] 0 0 125 bharatb bharat v 0 01/07/2005 00:10 17 3 7 [email protected] 0 1 2340 M Richard Adams Richard AdamsLondon, UK 0 01/11/2003 13:04 1247 123 40 [email protected] 0 1 1 M tim_d Tim Duckett York, UK 0 23/04/2002 13:47 1920 252 218 [email protected] 0 0 70 trusty_pen 0 06/03/2004 13:37 34 13 0 [email protected] 0 1 229 gin soak sheffield (of course!) 1 01/01/2005 00:00 999 132 66 [email protected] 0 1 1098 unclerichy 0 04/07/2004 14:58 441 43 22 [email protected] 0 1 39 M jonnybaker jonny baker london, uk 0 23/04/2000 17:38 2364 238 371 [email protected] 0 1 84 M rssimages Richard SayersSheffield, UK 1 03/03/2006 16:04 38 7 2 [email protected] 0 0 3035 Jillyreeves Peak District, Derbyshire, England0 29/06/2008 15:43 160 275 52 [email protected] 0 1 23 M stagedoor Ian Scarborough, United Kingdom0 17/12/2001 15:06 3613 112 157 [email protected] 0 1 2038 Buster Bakewell 0 29/01/2006 14:00 176 49 5 [email protected] 0 0 3255 forever/photography 0 12/04/2007 22:41 53 8 3 [email protected] 0 1 169 M munki.me Mark Smith UK 0 13/07/2002 19:56 1661 10 2 [email protected] 0 1 1394 M David Lewis-Baker Bath, UK 0 02/05/2007 21:31 863 170 634 [email protected] 0 0 27 el Dookie 0 19/04/2003 00:07 118 8 7 [email protected] 0 1 14 M beezly Andrew BeresfordHolmfirth, UK, England 0 01/01/2001 00:00 2298 13 60 [email protected] 0 0 2333 etaab 0 29/05/2005 07:44 174 6 0 [email protected] 0 1 23 M slack---line Neil Shephard Sheffield, United Kingdom 1 01/01/2003 00:00 1504 150 45 [email protected] 0 0 55 M Rob Webb Rob Webb Sheffield, South Yorkshire 1 06/06/2006 11:16 61 1 13 [email protected] 0 0 2120 pzel 0 01/01/1980 00:00 139 73 49 [email protected] 0 1 158 yny_uk 0 07/02/2005 23:12 514 4 4 [email protected] 0 1 84 M Michael Zurke Michael Zurke London, UK 0 15/10/2006 17:16 16 19 49 [email protected] 0 1 138 M brsanthu Santhosh KumarSan Rafael, CA, USA 0 30/06/2006 18:22 98 22 8 [email protected] 0 0 2365 M jhcrawshaw Jeremy Crawshaw 0 27/02/2004 13:28 63 3 2 [email protected] 0 1 101 M crouchy_crouch James UK 0 01/03/2000 00:00 738 368 208 [email protected] 0 0 98 F geeny eugenia aachen/germany, kiew/ukraine0 01/01/2003 00:00 190 194 488 [email protected] 0 1 138 Albert Cam 0 27/12/2005 10:46 171 21 21 [email protected] 0 0 23 F pupski Julia Webb Norwich, UK 0 01/01/2003 00:04 200 178 74 [email protected] 0 0 115 sheffield badmintonsheffield badminton 0 18/09/2006 20:22 3 2 0 [email protected] 0 1 178 M osborne villas Nick Stone Norwich, UK 0 01/05/1917 00:00 863 226 87 [email protected] 0 0 3256 shipley43 0 29/05/2008 02:02 166 64 4 [email protected] 0 0 66 M Ashley Pashley Smithash smith rotherham, uk 0 26/06/2003 08:19 200 52 14 [email protected] 0 1 28 munded Sheffield, UK 1 01/01/2004 16:10 1039 48 82 [email protected] 0 1 1053 Jeanie G 0 20/05/2007 22:38 6212 96 81 [email protected] 0 0 48 F dianna_cairns dianna cairns sheffield, uk 1 0 2 4 [email protected] 0 0 2324 :) katy :) 0 25/12/2007 14:39 4 1 0 [email protected] 0 1 1231 sergelapelle 0 20/09/2007 12:09 232 57 16 [email protected] 0 0 1065 F IndiaHobson India Hobson Sheffield, United Kingdom 1 29/10/2007 01:57 88 18 54 [email protected] 0 1 3036 M Jonny Haynes Jonny Haynes Sheffield, United Kingdom 1 04/10/2006 19:21 217 2 29 [email protected] 0 0 3122 M CJLphoto connor longley 0 06/03/2006 07:23 139 41 39 [email protected] 0 1 66 mahonyweb mahony Web UK & Thailand 0 03/08/2002 12:00 1224 153 840 [email protected] 0 1 134 M Alfonso Jim√©nez Alfonso JimenezManchester, United Kingdom0 09/12/2006 19:47 270 30 725 [email protected] 0 1 62 Spiritus Ex Machina Sheffield, UK 1 02/01/2002 21:19 1811 48 22 [email protected] 0 0 2100 Lost in ze north Sheffield, UK 1 15/02/2006 09:36 87 39 4 [email protected] 0 1 224 F teelawn Tina Barker Melbourne, Australia 0 01/01/1970 00:00 609 97 51 [email protected] 0 1 48 F Katerpillar Katherine Hansford 0 31/01/2004 00:00 455 2 2 [email protected] 0 1 1425 M tubbyphunk Robert Page Middlesbrough, United Kingdom0 04/10/2004 05:02 461 40 3 [email protected] 0 0 210 Maarw3K Abdullah Sheffield, UK, Kuwait 1 21/02/2007 13:41 60 40 39 [email protected] 0 1 1174 M John R Kerr John Kerr 0 27/03/1996 01:07 551 95 25 [email protected] 0 1 161 Billogs 0 11/01/1983 10:15 5016 319 104 [email protected] 0 1 35 Insane Hedgehog 0 05/09/2006 14:10 259 59 213 [email protected] 0 0 56 F Failed HeterosexualAlice Robison Nishihara, Japan 0 24/03/2007 21:48 198 149 74 [email protected] 0 0 1137 jillalee 0 18/10/2006 11:30 180 28 12 [email protected] 0 0 1135 M osde8info clive darr LGW, UK 0 02/01/2007 14:09 200 3137 2435 [email protected] 0 0 67 lurgantony 0 26/07/2006 10:23 5 10 0 [email protected] 0 1 25 F Gunnella Gunnella Tokyo, Japan 0 28/02/2004 10:28 1289 315 351 [email protected] 0 1 18 F friday roz Nottingham UK, Blantyre Malawi0 10/02/2002 03:28 495 100 86 [email protected] 0 0 2049 M Gary Mellor1 0 01/03/1986 11:46 151 74 3 [email protected] 0 0 74 M MarkSheffield Mark Brailsford 0 21/01/2005 14:18 24 5 0 [email protected] 0 0 2063 tipy_toes 0 07/01/2004 21:17 172 11 10 [email protected] 0 0 156 M M. P. James M.P. James 0 01/11/2005 23:18 58 4 11 [email protected] 0 0 14 M SorbyRock Ken SorbyrockSheffield, England 1 31/01/2006 15:37 99 261 480 [email protected] 0 0 169 M Greg Melia Greg Melia York 0 01/01/2006 23:32 155 177 19 [email protected] 0 1 3244 M manhunter.net John MounseySheffield, England 1 30/01/2004 20:47 319 8 24 [email protected] 0 0 2101 markjonbell 0 0 1 0 [email protected] 0 0 98 M sheffieldhammer Julian Dobson 0 04/09/2005 15:25 120 1 0 [email protected] 0 1 12 F becki3 Rebecca Sheffield, England 1 14/02/2003 00:07 1635 70 145 [email protected] 0 1 124 RUFUS'S PICTURES 0 01/12/1970 00:00 2633 508 234 [email protected] 0 1 148 M Bascule the Teller John Sheffield, UK 1 16/10/2005 11:34 613 36 46 [email protected] 0 1 4 M rightee Andy Wright Sheffield, UK 1 01/01/2002 00:00 3163 42 41 [email protected] 0 0 21 NeilG 0 05/08/2003 13:46 144 44 16 [email protected] 0 1 1276 M dafoot Ben UK 0 24/03/2007 17:17 354 6 20 [email protected] 0 1 15 F Ms. Moll Ms. Moll Sheffield, UK 1 01/01/1993 00:00 2754 643 198 [email protected] 0 1 2237 Astana Images England 0 01/09/2004 00:00 750 125 3 [email protected] 0 1 5 isriya Isriya PaireepairitSheffield, United Kingdom 1 06/09/2000 06:52 6654 22 78 [email protected] 0 0 3120 M Nick Davie Nick Davie 0 05/08/2007 11:04 21 8 6 [email protected] 0 1 2408 F Jennloumc Jenny McCambridge 0 31/01/2006 18:56 281 6 6 [email protected] 0 1 44 M rbrwr Rob Brewer Bristol, England 0 01/01/1974 00:00 1218 175 171 [email protected] 0 1 48 M www.inventory-photo.co.ukGary WolstenholmeSheffield, UK 1 17/02/2005 12:43 3229 53 128 [email protected] 0 0 3177 Cat in Sheffield Mao Li 0 15/03/2006 17:11 183 2 9 [email protected] 0 1 43 milknosugar 0 25/12/1974 08:08 2590 163 117 [email protected] 0 1 102 Stealthy Rabbit UK 0 18/10/2003 16:22 342 329 23 [email protected] 0 1 53 lovebytes Sheffield, UK 1 24/03/2005 15:21 871 16 73 [email protected] 0 1 19 M valyt Valentin TablanSheffield, UK 1 12/05/2001 11:32 597 8 13 [email protected] 0 1 1253 F Glamgirl Helen 0 25/08/2001 15:06 576 15 116 [email protected] 0 0 82 M Walter How Walter How London, United Kingdom 0 27/08/2004 16:38 87 90 19 [email protected] 0 0 2171 james.-g 0 01/01/2002 00:00 123 51 6

[email protected] 0 0 100 Fotoricordo Sheffield, UK 1 01/01/2002 00:00 43 7 4 [email protected] 0 0 40 A|X Kuwait, Kuwait 0 27/04/2006 13:54 13 24 22 [email protected] 0 1 2224 M tim2ubh Tim Chapman 0 05/09/2007 12:21 601 50 34 [email protected] 0 0 1354 M craigand Craig Andrews 0 02/06/2007 13:33 200 2 7 [email protected] 0 0 23 M North Country BoyAndy Millns London, UK 0 18/01/2002 21:10 143 47 29 [email protected] 0 0 43 eth3er sheffield, england 1 01/01/2000 00:00 118 14 8 [email protected] 0 0 1370 M sirgeoffboycott Andy Battye Chicago, USA, USA 0 0 1 1 [email protected] 0 0 194 Dan Finnan 0 28/02/2006 03:21 154 141 234 [email protected] 0 1 23 Darryl_SE7 London, UK 0 01/08/1988 00:00 3160 242 112 [email protected] 0 1 3211 Hasland Fox 0 01/05/2004 12:58 1199 25 92 [email protected] 0 0 1023 F foxylou86 Louise Fox Sheffield, UK 1 16/05/2006 12:00 114 1 12 [email protected] 0 0 166 Fazilah Ali Fazilah Ali Sheffield, England 1 19/12/2004 12:42 108 54 20 [email protected] 0 1 111 Pixally Deyne Sheffield, United Kingdom 1 15/05/2000 10:57 276 49 22 [email protected] 0 0 38 KrisBlade 0 15/04/2006 15:51 184 64 5 [email protected] 0 0 3127 M Ian_Jones Ian Jones Sheffield, UK 1 12/06/2006 09:44 109 92 58 [email protected] 0 1 32 M papalamour paul sandhamLlanbidinodyn, Nant Ddiflas,0 Cymru12/09/2003 / Wales, United 14:42 Kingdom 1120 281 232 [email protected] 0 1 1 M Alex Atkin UK Alexander Atkin 0 08/07/2006 20:23 121 2 11 [email protected] 0 0 201 M markuk Mark 0 04/02/2006 17:17 119 5 0 [email protected] 0 1 26 M zootle Iain M Barker Sheffield, UK 1 08/03/2005 12:37 76 10 0 [email protected] 0 1 3273 Primed Minister 0 01/06/1995 00:00 644 89 244 [email protected] 0 0 3209 M tomanthonyphotographytom anthony sheffield, england 1 07/03/2007 13:26 74 91 142 [email protected] 0 0 181 F cpe/sheffield Nynke Wierda Sheffield 1 28/06/2007 17:43 200 2 1 [email protected] 0 1 23 Uggla torkel uggla 0 25/12/2004 14:09 307 325 57 [email protected] 0 0 97 M PointAndClick Martin England 0 04/04/2004 18:49 9 2 0 [email protected] 0 1 3091 M Yeatesy of SheffieldMark Yeates Sheffield, England 1 08/11/2005 13:36 255 7 8 [email protected] 0 0 1013 M cyclingbob Rob AppleyardEngland 0 22/05/2007 19:16 168 3 6 [email protected] 0 1 3110 M kristian birchall Kristian Birchall 0 01/01/2006 00:00 181 27 1 [email protected] 0 0 107 M RichardHobson (priddypix)Ric Hobson Sheffield, U.K 1 10/12/2006 20:30 191 18 41 [email protected] 0 1 63 F marinegirl Rebecca WeeksTownsville, Australia 0 08/07/2002 23:32 1103 76 38 [email protected] 0 1 2284 rs1979 0 01/01/2003 00:00 49183 49 11 [email protected] 0 1 166 mr broddy Brodnax MooreGosport, UK 0 1885-01-01 00:00:00 119 55 38 [email protected] 0 0 134 Jaewook and Friendsjaewook kwonHalle/Saale, Deutschland 0 01/07/1981 08:42 171 5 5 [email protected] 0 1 106 sheffdave Sheffield, United Kingdom 1 01/01/1965 00:00 7052 64 47 [email protected] 0 0 82 giac o))) Giacomo Italy 0 07/06/2006 12:14 59 11 18 [email protected] 0 0 91 tmunki 0 20/07/2004 13:24 139 36 10 [email protected] 0 1 32 F lincharnley Lin Charnley South Yorkshire, England 0 02/07/2002 22:59 4242 28 41 [email protected] 0 0 3025 M Moh Tj Mohammad TajerHuddersfield, UK 0 16/01/2006 23:25 67 189 119 [email protected] 0 1 94 F Alicia en Sheffield (now away for a week) 0 30/11/2000 17:13 618 155 324 [email protected] 0 1 1 M Roger B. Roger ButterfieldSheffield, UK 1 01/01/1905 00:00 2535 329 382 [email protected] 0 1 27 Manic.D 0 0000-00-00 00:00:00 2855 145 90 [email protected] 0 1 134 M Steel-City Richard FletcherSheffield, United Kingdom 1 01/01/2003 00:06 26 29 3 [email protected] 0 1 2226 M Not "THE"RichardRichard Heathcote HeathcoteNanjing, China 0 13/08/2007 13:26 149 151 200 [email protected] 0 1 97 johnthescone Sheffield 1 24/02/2003 09:54 715 19 20 [email protected] 0 1 63 M Johnny2bad John H Sheffield, UK 1 21/03/2002 13:11 2248 49 10 [email protected] 0 0 163 M Josef Habart Habart Josef Czech Republic 0 08/08/2005 06:58 98 65 52 [email protected] 0 1 45 Ali-PG 0 14/06/2003 17:21 260 171 58 [email protected] 0 0 173 Leoyde Sheffield, England 1 14/05/2007 16:41 183 34 62 [email protected] 0 1 126 ombre chimique Sheffield, United Kingdom 1 31/03/2003 10:30 65 229 120 [email protected] 0 0 149 paulsobek 0 05/10/2005 12:36 98 1 1 [email protected] 0 0 57 M nahdendee David Maycock 0 03/10/2003 15:03 20 2 0 [email protected] 0 1 93 stranded_starfish 0 02/09/2002 14:29 916 70 134 [email protected] 0 1 39 M Pickersgill Reef Tony Roberts 0 01/07/1983 00:00 3037 213 234 [email protected] 0 0 2263 M Photometry. Andrew Lawrence 0 21/03/2006 05:22 35 1 0 [email protected] 0 1 70 M Tom and Nadja Tom & NadjaSheffield, Ormerod UK 1 07/03/2000 16:10 1026 117 42 [email protected] 0 1 2214 Photoccasion 0 30/12/2004 17:15 31 8 3 [email protected] 0 0 2269 it's alive! Deepcar, Sheffield, United 1Kingdom31/12/2007 13:17 80 47 28 [email protected] 0 0 2246 F cobriel Freya Massey Sheffield, England 1 01/06/2005 00:00 196 8 5 [email protected] 0 0 2362 Joni<3You 0 14/10/2006 16:54 184 13 0 [email protected] 0 1 34 M TGIGreeny Tom Green London, UK 0 05/01/2004 17:14 3509 223 32 [email protected] 0 0 2058 Camel108 Noushin Mostowfi 0 26/12/2007 13:42 36 10 2 [email protected] 0 1 35 F anne.g Anne Uk 0 08/06/2005 16:27 752 51 34 [email protected] 0 1 44 M macjw2 John Barnsley, UK 0 19/05/2006 06:54 732 150 184 [email protected] 0 0 181 io070oi 0 12/05/2005 21:58 32 6 1 [email protected] 0 1 2067 M Lost Icini Martin LiddamentSheffield, England 1 24/07/2004 17:20 277 33 20 [email protected] 0 0 166 Crimsonpurple 0 20/05/2005 07:14 135 231 10 [email protected] 0 1 55 M martsky Martin Smith 0 01/10/2005 00:00 441 313 99 [email protected] 0 0 1031 sopaz 0 12/07/2006 18:51 122 1 1 [email protected] 0 1 226 StripeyAnne Leeds, England 0 01/01/2002 00:01 544 103 125 [email protected] 0 1 155 M Carl Fleischer PhotosCarl FleishcherSheffield, England 1 19/12/2006 10:27 312 38 69 [email protected] 0 1 1033 mikesm 0 12/07/2005 11:54 966 22 11 [email protected] 0 1 5 M davosmith David (Davo) SmithSheffield, England 1 15/10/1999 20:53 1647 22 32 [email protected] 0 1 6 M Pata de Perro Edgar Barcelona, Spain 0 01/01/1980 00:00 295 135 186 [email protected] 0 1 91 M Reverend Sam Sam ChapmanSheffield, United Kingdom 1 31/12/2002 21:03 7624 103 32 [email protected] 0 1 234 KSchnacki 0 29/05/2002 16:46 337 23 11 [email protected] 0 0 2003 The Old Sweet Shop Sheffield 1 10/01/2007 11:14 34 5 8 [email protected] 0 1 1385 M ta||tim Tim David 0 01/07/2001 00:00 775 80 212 [email protected] 0 1 119 M jatherton Jeremy Atherton 0 27/01/2002 15:43 458 87 15 [email protected] 0 1 172 M Mr Tom Long Samuel Body Sheffield, England 1 19/09/2005 04:24 330 89 50 [email protected] 0 0 11 M gpshephard Gary ShephardSheffield 1 02/01/2004 02:32 204 5 4 [email protected] 0 1 1332 M Ben Nuttall Ben Nuttall Sheffield, United Kingdom 1 01/07/2006 00:00 381 12 9 [email protected] 0 0 25 Sheffield Doc/Fest 0 10/10/2005 18:15 52 5 0 [email protected] 0 0 211 F HeloiseAM. Heloise McDowell 0 14/02/2007 11:43 69 33 4 [email protected] 0 1 4 Paul Conneally 0 01/01/2004 00:00 870 30 24 [email protected] 0 0 2192 M james.woodward James WoodwardLondon, United Kingdom 0 11/07/2005 15:37 195 20 10 [email protected] 0 1 106 M Mister Moo Mister Moo Leicestershire, England 0 18/06/1999 14:02 323 93 95 [email protected] 0 0 144 M steven whitehouseSteven Whitehouse 0 01/07/2005 00:00 83 19 2 [email protected] 0 1 5 *Pete 0 03/04/2004 15:18 4388 87 133 [email protected] 0 1 2220 M robsohn Robert RaszczynskiUK 0 03/11/2007 14:40 85 23 18 [email protected] 0 0 32 F Emily Winch Emily Winch Sheffield, England 1 05/11/2002 19:10 46 5 13 [email protected] 0 1 2371 F meganamyswart Megan Swart Sheffield 1 23/01/2003 19:10 973 17 19 [email protected] 0 0 93 digitalhob 0 01/01/2004 00:00 22 3 2 [email protected] 0 0 1228 PeteM01 0 01/05/2005 10:12 200 2 11 [email protected] 0 1 90 M mardy1 Dave Sheffield, England 1 01/06/1961 00:00 1175 118 63 [email protected] 0 0 94 vidjourno 0 22/09/2005 15:14 12 1 2 [email protected] 0 1 3275 M Carl Horne Carl Horne Lincoln, United Kingdom 0 26/12/2007 17:15 228 13 68 [email protected] 0 1 46 F fuzzypurple emma falconerSheffield, England 1 04/02/1999 00:31 5711 11 13 [email protected] 0 0 1352 sowtz 0 29/01/2003 01:26 135 9 10 [email protected] 0 1 2031 M Bill Bevan Bill Bevan World, Northumbria 0 01/01/2005 00:00 668 37 35 [email protected] 0 0 147 M RichHumphries Richard Humphries 0 19/01/2007 12:42 168 19 4 [email protected] 0 0 2268 blackdragon64 Haverhill, England,Untied Kingdom0 0 917 771 [email protected] 0 1 51 oplesrope Sheffield / Manchester, UK1 13/09/2002 08:36 1267 54 211 [email protected] 0 1 16 Drunken Monkey DM Sunny Sheffield, UK 1 01/01/2002 00:00 966 133 163 [email protected] 0 1 8 M Max xx Max Westby Sully, Sa√¥ne-et-Loire, Burgundy,0 12/08/1995 France 13:09 1995 364 118 [email protected] 0 0 1259 F fim2b Julie Sheffield, UK 1 08/06/2005 15:02 39 7 0 [email protected] 0 1 23 Photomath? 0 11/12/2004 13:38 62 256 321 [email protected] 0 1 3275 allthewine 0 01/01/2006 00:38 13 44 0 [email protected] 0 0 18 F Squishy* Lynne Sheffield, UK 1 14/06/2005 15:44 131 35 14 [email protected] 0 1 4 M publicenergy Dave Wild Nottinghamshire, UK 0 05/02/1991 00:00 3372 95 629 [email protected] 0 1 186 M realdragonito Robin Willig Bonn, Germany 0 25/02/2006 18:24 307 40 8 [email protected] 0 0 2280 F Jim's Mum Eileen Barter 0 05/06/2007 12:10 1 3 1 [email protected] 0 1 15 M jonny mango Danny Munro 0 17/06/2005 21:39 177 9 11 [email protected] 0 0 130 flim_flam_kitty 0 21/06/2001 11:58 78 5 7 [email protected] 0 1 1207 M ianmibbo Ian Ibbotson Sheffield, UK 1 14/08/2001 21:04 564 4 13 [email protected] 0 1 23 Gigglejuice England, UK 0 02/01/2004 16:06 1480 53 111 [email protected] 0 1 50 the matt1 0 03/02/2006 10:30 208 89 59 [email protected] 0 1 208 M Mandar Marathe Mandar MaratheBrisbane, Australia 0 22/01/2003 13:28 157 42 105 [email protected] 0 1 41 F Beckelina50 Becky Hughes 0 12/07/2005 19:11 429 3 3 [email protected] 0 0 75 M benjaminsphotos Ben Miskell Sheffield, United Kingdom 1 23/10/2006 10:34 200 26 5 [email protected] 0 1 2209 JessieChiu Sheffield, United Kingdom 1 24/09/2007 12:45 165 89 39 [email protected] 0 0 39 M Will Palmer Will Palmer Leeds, United Kingdom 0 20/07/2006 20:37 200 219 12 [email protected] 0 0 2085 grinty 0 30/04/2007 01:44 8 1 0 [email protected] 0 1 223 Tero Kallioinen 0 18/02/2007 13:55 196 1 8 [email protected] 0 1 1262 M Cynergist Kevin Pack Stockport, Cheshire, United0 Kingdom25/03/2005 13:55 1020 106 72 [email protected] 0 1 1237 M pezter_p Paul UK 0 01/01/2000 00:00 1486 827 111 [email protected] 0 1 3008 F incurable_hippie Philippa WillittsSheffield, UK 1 15/08/2001 10:03 12637 466 228 [email protected] 0 1 27 sue_s 0 12/03/2003 15:35 484 154 16 [email protected] 0 0 1414 F helen_cotterill Helen CotterillSheffield, England 1 05/03/2007 12:12 112 9 11 [email protected] 0 1 117 zarach4 0 02/01/2004 16:55 1171 117 38 [email protected] 0 1 195 M Austin_UK Wayne Austin Chesterfield, England 0 25/01/2005 20:59 98 177 43 [email protected] 0 0 3250 thejelman 0 02/02/2008 12:01 3 2 0 [email protected] 0 1 3020 in focus now Sheffield, UK 1 22/06/2008 05:00 78 30 13 [email protected] 0 0 1055 Harish Vangara 0 30/12/2007 16:21 155 37 4 [email protected] 0 0 2190 mohit_dj Mohit Joshi 0 08/05/2007 19:03 200 3 6 [email protected] 0 0 2374 Museums Sheffield 0 30/05/2008 09:51 39 2 1 [email protected] 0 1 50 pojka2 sheffield, england 1 24/05/2005 12:43 433 192 92 [email protected] 0 1 1 M Xurble Gareth SimpsonBurbank, USA 0 28/12/2004 12:43 1110 63 38 [email protected] 0 0 2383 c_dos_run 0 15/12/2007 09:26 21 4 0 [email protected] 0 1 57 F IzaD's photoground‚Ñ¢IzaD KasmijaNChemor, Malaysia 0 16/09/2004 07:03 1057 124 248 [email protected] 0 0 107 F Rakane Rachel Kane Sheffield, UK 1 08/09/2005 10:20 200 9 21 [email protected] 0 0 64 Mr. J Doe 0 18/11/2005 21:00 82 31 54 [email protected] 0 1 228 rjeeps Sheffield, UK 1 12/06/2004 12:19 217 5 6 [email protected] 0 1 1 BKMworld Sheffield, England 1 23/05/2004 17:02 416 172 15 [email protected] 0 1 21 Dorothy Anne dot UK 0 01/01/2003 22:33 4082 17 21 [email protected] 0 0 1044 M Craig A Clark Craig Clark Sheffield UK, UK 1 07/08/2005 12:20 81 2 4 [email protected] 0 0 2276 Billy Keats 0 30/12/2007 06:27 33 22 19 [email protected] 0 1 45 F jessthecat jess thecat UK 0 21/04/2004 16:04 1792 101 30 [email protected] 0 1 196 F ninebunz Lucy Sheffield, England 1 19/05/2003 21:11 466 20 8 [email protected] 0 1 34 F lizjones112 Liz Jones Sheffield, UK 1 20/06/2004 16:46 2099 406 79 [email protected] 0 1 24 M Rod Monkey Rod Monkey Edinburgh, Bonnie Scotland0 23/03/2004 17:37 243 596 621 [email protected] 0 1 2415 F kymai100 Brenda Sheffield, United Kingdom 1 01/03/1999 00:00 4713 268 202

[email protected] 0 1 148 M russell_photog Russell Beckett 0 04/02/2006 19:25 313 51 1 [email protected] 0 1 118 pauldcocker Sheffield, UK 1 25/06/2005 17:42 495 127 308 [email protected] 0 0 2129 bigsilly CHI WEI CHONGSheffield, United Kingdom 1 16/03/2007 17:33 168 3 10 [email protected] 0 1 117 rose drew 0 28/08/2004 13:09 127 2 3 [email protected] 0 0 57 F eliszard Elizabeth King Barnsley, UK 0 07/06/2004 19:03 30 2 1 [email protected] 0 0 2353 ironline 0 23/12/2007 12:12 7 4 4 [email protected] 0 0 29 mr noseybonk 0 15/04/2003 17:22 36 16 15 [email protected] 0 1 97 mad paul Farsley, Leeds, UK 0 01/01/2004 13:10 398 115 189 [email protected] 0 1 79 M Darkish Gray Simon Gray Sheffield, United Kingdom 1 01/01/1980 00:00 1384 39 29 [email protected] 0 1 64 M Briggate.com Lloyd SpencerLeeds, West Yorkshire, UK0 05/05/1981 10:40 4342 342 310 [email protected] 0 0 113 M the.myers Andy M 0 0 3 1 [email protected] 0 0 2014 M Graham Shackleton 0 18/03/2007 16:51 7 7 10 [email protected] 0 0 2407 mygrassisalwaysblueG O Sheffield, UK 1 03/06/2007 19:07 97 20 7 [email protected] 0 1 6 M Mullers Tom MulrooneyBurnley, England 0 01/01/2002 00:00 312 51 12 [email protected] 0 1 24 arepeejee 0 06/08/2002 14:27 8317 309 174 [email protected] 0 1 58 M siandara TOM ley UK 0 28/05/2004 22:39 1270 239 24 [email protected] 0 0 3153 fairowl62 0 0 1 0 [email protected] 0 0 3124 akuapam 0 03/02/2006 00:00 154 31 50 [email protected] 0 1 15 M dunkr Duncan RobsonLondon, UK 0 01/01/1999 00:00 844 37 30 [email protected] 0 0 38 planty2 0 08/07/2006 17:12 1 134 6 [email protected] 0 0 48 M adam mcauley Adam McAuleysheffield, UK 1 20/06/2003 21:26 61 1 23 [email protected] 0 1 173 M s81photos David Tait Woodsetts, UK 0 02/11/2003 19:58 960 127 128 [email protected] 0 1 2184 MrGimlet 0 30/12/2003 03:01 72 231 32 [email protected] 0 1 2325 westernthunderer01 0 05/01/2008 13:26 16 34 0 [email protected] 0 1 2148 KingOfHiking (R) Power to Sichun people 0 23/07/1991 21:28 6790 73 263 [email protected] 0 1 1 M ~ Phil Moore Phil Moore Paris, France 0 04/01/2004 07:45 3170 140 71 [email protected] 0 1 99 marc falk 0 06/04/2006 21:51 660 66 64 [email protected] 0 1 113 robandwend 0 03/04/2004 17:16 7567 24 48 [email protected] 0 1 125 F Gemma-Louise Gemma LouiseEngland 0 01/01/2003 00:00 403 8 4 [email protected] 0 1 73 M BBColin Colin HazeldenNottingham, England 0 01/05/2003 00:00 324 83 84 [email protected] 0 0 112 Mavii Sheffield, UK 1 20/02/2006 10:47 174 52 28 [email protected] 0 0 182 Kika Malika 0 15/03/2004 14:31 200 39 24 [email protected] 0 0 1095 AMat-Syafix 0 01/10/2005 00:00 196 5 0 [email protected] 0 0 206 M Tom San Tom Rogers The Industrial North, UK 0 23/04/2007 08:10 102 28 3 [email protected] 0 1 2341 malsain_infinity 0 02/06/2005 20:58 266 15 8 [email protected] 0 1 40 M markbarky Mark BarkawayBrighton, United Kingdom 0 15/02/2003 13:28 806 91 29 [email protected] 0 1 47 Onken Bio-pot 0 25/12/2005 13:18 536 140 81 [email protected] 0 0 1225 hockeybear 0 06/04/2008 22:04 68 2 2 [email protected] 0 1 88 M steveminshull Steve 0 10/06/2006 10:41 456 30 9 [email protected] 0 0 1 M sunblock Ilias TheodoropoulosSheffield, UK 1 02/01/2004 19:26 55 35 11 [email protected] 0 1 72 F tiggsybabes Anna Blight West Yorkshire, UK 0 15/01/2001 07:39 5050 204 117 [email protected] 0 1 3053 XiaoGuo2008 0 06/07/2005 03:12 229 44 56 [email protected] 0 1 5 M d4rr3ll Darrell Taylor UK 0 01/12/2000 18:36 552 197 34 [email protected] 0 0 52 M oj smith olly smith 0 28/04/2006 02:10 203 27 23 [email protected] 0 1 2159 digicanon 0 01/01/1980 00:00 825 45 17 [email protected] 0 0 228 VisCount 0 01/01/2001 01:18 45 7 0 [email protected] 0 1 2174 Paul_S_Thomas 0 03/01/2004 17:59 93 4 6 [email protected] 0 1 3 M Hairy Potter Jim Gunson Surrey, BC, Canada 0 26/06/2004 14:10 569 18 8 [email protected] 0 1 140 pitty107 0 18/06/2006 23:20 238 169 84 [email protected] 0 1 35 INoxKrow caped crusaderSheffield, space invader UK 1 01/01/2004 07:53 461 21 116 [email protected] 0 1 3077 ajehals 0 12/06/2008 20:11 108 18 7 [email protected] 0 0 56 Lemon2 0 11/05/2007 05:40 200 487 159 [email protected] 0 0 1116 shuthigob 0 29/10/2007 15:48 37 66 39 [email protected] 0 1 52 M mikejilljessicatomleeMike Lee Sheffield, UK 1 01/01/1978 00:00 5703 508 49 [email protected] 0 1 223 salty-catpig 0 01/01/2000 00:00 211 206 54 [email protected] 0 1 33 M marc_tomorrow Marc Scott-WestDevon, UK 0 13/01/1999 01:08 310 117 77 [email protected] 0 1 25 Last Human Gateway 0 01/01/1997 00:00 4387 65 66 [email protected] 0 0 41 Wysseri 0 12/07/2004 21:48 127 22 5 [email protected] 0 1 150 RobMcC 0 08/11/1997 07:45 4140 41 7 [email protected] 0 1 86 M Martin Khan Martin Lee United Kingdom 0 11/04/2004 13:40 409 53 13 [email protected] 0 1 6 M John Wardell (Netinho)John Wardell Sheffield, United Kingdom 1 26/01/2002 11:09 535 412 228 [email protected] 0 1 61 M Ray Snell Ray Snell Rotherham, England 0 01/01/1999 00:42 2609 16 110 [email protected] 0 0 1111 M PicFreak42 Ernie 0 01/08/2007 05:00 199 126 178 [email protected] 0 0 47 M Doug... Doug Newton Crookes, Sheffield, South Yorkshire,1 20/07/2005 UK 16:20 182 46 17 [email protected] 0 0 55 M Mathew Savage Mathew SavageDoncaster, England 0 02/05/2006 19:53 175 54 51 [email protected] 0 1 53 Andy2Boyz Sheffield, UK 1 31/01/1999 12:04 1211 47 18 [email protected] 0 1 126 M geo3pea Geoff Rotherham, U K 0 13/12/2006 10:07 751 96 116 [email protected] 0 0 26 M !!steffstef Stefan InnerhoferSheffield 1 09/01/2004 05:07 204 268 182 [email protected] 0 0 188 glynnmay 0 16/10/2006 12:21 33 4 2 [email protected] 0 0 29 M frankybaby Frank Carn-PryorSheffield, Suffolk 1 10/01/2004 09:10 183 51 43 [email protected] 0 0 25 M madewithpixels michael auty Sheffield, UK 1 03/03/2005 13:41 150 208 77 [email protected] 0 0 3055 F fayfayrae1 Rachel Kocinski 0 15/10/2007 10:54 21 2 0 [email protected] 0 0 2004 M LSolari Lorenzo SolariChiavari, Italia 0 29/01/2004 17:24 71 20 33 [email protected] 0 0 124 M jevan236 Jevan Pierre 0 04/07/2006 09:56 67 11 1 [email protected] 0 0 1 M greywulf Grey Wulf Chesterfield, UK 0 01/01/2005 00:00 200 77 100 [email protected] 0 1 8 chocoadicta Angeles M. 0 18/04/2003 09:44 928 191 231 [email protected] 0 0 41 asuma 0 18/02/2005 10:38 130 10 9 [email protected] 0 1 4 M Alx Girard AlexandreBerlin, Germany 0 21/02/2002 21:28 3854 65 46 [email protected] 0 0 24 James Disley „Ç∏„Çß„Éº„É†„Ç∫„ÄÄAnan, Tokushima, „Éá„Ç£„Ç∫„É¨„Éº Japan„ÄÄ0 13/10/2007 10:40 6 237 77 [email protected] 0 1 32 Christian Briddon 0 17/01/1997 01:51 3488 29 18 [email protected] 0 1 45 ‚óè‚óè HaSsaN‚Ñ¢ ‚óè‚óèHaSsaN - {QTR} AljaberDoha, Qatar 0 29/01/2000 14:08 190 182 646 [email protected] 0 0 181 >>Toaster in>>Toaster the Bath<< in the Bath<< 0 01/01/2004 00:00 200 8 6 [email protected] 0 0 2349 CALLAMON callum! french! 0 22/01/2006 22:33 136 22 27 [email protected] 0 1 22 gongemonge Sheffield, UK 1 24/05/2004 13:19 248 97 242 [email protected] 0 0 53 M jamess! James 0 24/04/2005 13:11 25 2 16 [email protected] 0 1 14 M kpocheffy Kevin O'DonnellHalley, Antarctica 0 28/09/2003 14:12 350 119 82 [email protected] 0 1 1218 chokogin 0 03/04/2005 06:56 435 1 17 [email protected] 0 1 67 MIK4 0 01/01/2000 16:06 366 148 66 [email protected] 0 1 174 pixelwitch 0 04/02/2007 01:06 4523 17 59 [email protected] 0 1 1148 F ~EssJay~ Sandra Lincolnshire, England 0 01/01/2003 00:00 183 810 147 [email protected] 0 0 1 M choffee John Sheffield, UK 1 14/12/2006 19:04 52 19 20 [email protected] 0 1 6 F .penny. Penny Jones Sheffield 1 28/12/2004 10:14 1003 23 24 [email protected] 0 0 82 Simon Mulvaney 0 01/07/2003 17:45 175 11 19 [email protected] 0 0 2019 M Karan.07 Karan Taware 0 21/10/2006 18:40 104 132 84 [email protected] 0 0 1029 swapnarajagopal swapna rajagopal 0 01/04/2006 04:34 144 24 21 [email protected] 0 0 48 M Mike-kun Mike Tokyo, Japan 0 19/10/2006 06:05 149 12 11 [email protected] 0 0 73 ginobrancazio 0 07/11/2005 00:34 13 1 0 [email protected] 0 0 20 F gertrude75c Gertrude HolsteinNewcastle 0 21/07/2005 22:19 88 21 11 [email protected] 0 1 3269 M nmachin Nick 0 23/07/2008 18:49 2 2 4 [email protected] 0 0 2231 moinakbasu2002 moinak basu mumbai, india 0 29/03/2005 21:45 189 46 46 [email protected] 0 1 33 ThunderChild tm uk 0 01/01/1997 00:32 4569 231 451 [email protected] 0 1 87 johnboy01 0 15/04/2006 16:57 392 9 5 [email protected] 0 1 2416 M Neogen Hawk Nick Lawrence 0 10/06/2006 12:26 124 9 8 [email protected] 0 1 141 meadbh metrustry meadbh metrustryLondon 0 24/02/2007 11:08 455 15 36 [email protected] 0 1 224 Matt Thompson 0 01/01/2003 22:05 60 24 16 [email protected] 0 1 27 Benjamin's Photos 0 11/07/2005 17:30 657 158 30 [email protected] 0 0 47 M mrjpeterj Peter Jeffery Sheffield, U.K 1 01/06/1997 00:00 138 4 6 [email protected] 0 0 3128 tilli_dilly Sheffield, UK 1 02/05/2007 09:46 40 25 1 [email protected] 0 1 148 F Sheila Webber Sheila WebberSheffield, UK 1 01/03/2007 00:00 577 10 5 [email protected] 0 1 64 M Chris Dymond Chris Dymond 0 01/01/2005 00:00 322 66 66 [email protected] 0 0 146 M popp1e Ian Poppleton Stockport, United Kingdom0 01/01/1980 00:00 60 2 2 [email protected] 0 1 205 here's a llama 0 04/08/2005 02:26 335 87 9 [email protected] 0 0 63 ClassicrockeR Athens, Greece 0 30/06/2006 13:26 69 53 11 [email protected] 0 0 52 F kate:) Kate Ebbutt 0 13/02/2007 22:36 189 20 39 [email protected] 0 1 118 electrolyte2006 UK 0 05/09/2004 11:17 960 109 221 [email protected] 0 1 75 F niinka Nynke Wierda Sheffield, UK 1 29/07/2003 12:48 1928 45 65 [email protected] 0 0 47 bram_app Bram Sheffield, England 1 02/02/2006 19:19 204 11 14 [email protected] 0 1 1420 F dichohecho Sarah UK 0 01/01/2004 12:01 2646 88 67 [email protected] 0 0 35 F kattyp_dot Kat UK 0 03/03/2006 05:24 67 3 9 [email protected] 0 1 133 F sanneroberts Sanne RobertsYork, UK 0 01/01/2004 00:00 1257 53 15 [email protected] 0 1 98 Ironmonger 0 21/04/2002 12:11 8948 59 37 [email protected] 0 1 3 dopaminejunkie 0 05/09/2004 22:58 782 71 669 [email protected] 0 1 105 M gavinlc Gavin CockremSheffield, UK 1 10/08/2001 08:03 2037 34 24 [email protected] 0 1 73 M Malc47 Malcolm King's Lynn, UK 0 09/07/2001 15:50 505 114 60 [email protected] 0 0 2325 Amigo Sr. 3mran Sheffield, England 1 03/07/2008 15:51 3 5 681 [email protected] 0 1 31 M waddie Tom WaddingtonNottingham, UK 0 02/11/2005 07:18 1058 83 77 [email protected] 0 0 2109 F Princess Fireball Christina Tan 0 13/10/2005 19:22 89 10 3 [email protected] 0 0 1331 Chapmanmania 0 07/06/2004 21:07 182 6 6 [email protected] 0 0 73 M james m hunter james hunter sheffield, england 1 04/04/2004 11:17 37 4 2 [email protected] 0 1 27 sponge2292 0 01/07/1988 00:00 755 22 5 [email protected] 0 1 32 M das kine Colin Worby Sheffield, England 1 31/07/2004 18:37 720 97 28 [email protected] 0 1 49 M Oxfordshire ChurchesJohn Ward England 0 02/02/2003 13:58 5774 122 50 [email protected] 0 0 2273 gal_la 0 23/11/2007 15:35 41 17 1 [email protected] 0 0 2327 RezaHadisi Reza HAdisi Sheffield, UK 1 09/05/2005 19:13 124 5 16 [email protected] 0 0 17 iwouldstay 0 29/03/2006 14:33 200 86 68 [email protected] 0 0 144 Bek in \e\ngland 0 13/08/2005 09:20 67 17 8 [email protected] 0 1 3233 wildgeese71 0 01/05/2003 15:23 234 5 8 [email protected] 0 1 57 M minkymonkeymoo Tim Herrick Sheffield, UK 1 24/06/2006 11:05 566 15 12 [email protected] 0 1 22 M leondz Leon Sheffield, UK 1 07/05/2005 23:21 369 32 29 [email protected] 0 0 243 M Rhodesjmartin Martin RhodesSheffield, UK 1 17/08/2004 18:54 63 101 12 [email protected] 0 1 2009 M wayward passion Ray King 0 12/08/2007 14:08 144 6 15 [email protected] 0 1 3143 Oz.Nikon 0 06/07/2008 16:38 426 4 2 [email protected] 0 1 2339 AngrySquirrel 0 02/06/2006 17:49 71 2 1 [email protected] 0 0 2013 Lord Snapper 0 15/04/2004 15:32 28 38 0 [email protected] 0 1 59 F em3978 Emma HoughtonChesterfield, England 0 29/06/2005 18:50 284 27 26 [email protected] 0 1 140 hongkonguk13 0 18/08/2005 06:08 1896 324 102 [email protected] 0 0 100 Foto43 0 01/09/1966 12:10 182 74 7 [email protected] 0 1 3 M J-Hob John Hobson Edinburgh, UK 0 15/05/2004 13:27 3952 52 52 [email protected] 0 0 1 M MartinSweeney martin sweeneyLeeds, United Kingdom 0 18/05/2004 09:11 122 126 130 [email protected] 0 1 17 M ambrose ambrose white 0 07/08/2001 20:13 3297 5 40

[email protected] 0 0 20 M sysfal Simon CoakleySheffield, UK 1 0 2 6 [email protected] 0 1 210 Arshad Habib A Habib Sheffield, England 1 01/01/2002 21:16 338 190 182 [email protected] 0 1 1323 Azneo Akshat Rathi Mumbai, India 0 29/11/1992 22:12 1166 261 445 [email protected] 0 1 146 Vagamundos Rafael L√≥pezLas Diez Palmas de Gran Canaria,0 Espa√±a01/12/2002 00:00 1226 142 125 [email protected] 0 0 2086 shulls 0 09/09/2006 15:57 27 4 18 [email protected] 0 1 3001 M Pete Mella Pete Mella Sheffield, UK 1 01/01/2003 06:10 355 24 10 [email protected] 0 1 47 josefuteimu 0 24/09/2001 09:59 14886 14 45 [email protected] 0 1 175 myeagle00 0 19/07/2006 11:41 438 18 29 [email protected] 0 1 1040 Wheelz24 Sheffield, UK 1 09/02/2006 20:47 89 8 3 [email protected] 0 0 2265 fuzzy_peach 0 22/01/2006 00:29 98 50 7 [email protected] 0 0 43 jlxiong JL Xiong 0 01/11/2001 12:00 149 52 76 [email protected] 0 0 2249 M Jerry Zhao Jerry Zhao Sheffield, United Kingdom 1 05/07/2006 00:58 190 41 59