Path/URL to images has changed [Sitemap] - Digital Grin Photography Forum

aerialphoto

Oct-23-2009, 06:38 AM

I searched for this in a couple of subforums and came up with zip, sorry if it's been discussed...

I was just getting ready to send someone a link to a single image from my site and I noticed the path to the images is no longer "http://pix.aerog.com/photos/imagename.jpg". Now the path includes the category, gallery name, original filename, and smugmug's filename for the image.

*HUH*!?

Example:

The direct link to this image - http://pix.aerog.com/photos/548697233_iHSsu-S-3.jpg

used to be http://pix.aerog.com/photos/548697233_iHSsu-S-3.jpg

Now it's http://pix.aerog.com/Image-Store/Aerials/DSC0747a/548697233_iHSsu-S-3.jpg

Obviously both full url's work - I can still use the original one, but right-clicking on the image gives me that second full URL including my original filename and so does the "share" button.

A workaround is to use the "hide owner" option in the gallery but that's a lousy solution. A second option is to edit every stinkin' link to every image I send to people or post on forums - which is an every lousier solution causing a lot of needless clicking, editing, and work.

A good solution is to put it back the way it was PLEASE, or failing that give us the option of having the share button parse out all the data and show us just the "http://pix.aerog.com/photos/548697233_iHSsu-S-3.jpg" type link.

denisegoldberg

Oct-23-2009, 06:50 AM

That changed with the introduction of NiceNames in August. See August 13th entry in http://blogs.smugmug.com/release-notes/.

--- Denise

aerialphoto

Oct-23-2009, 08:20 AM

Sorry Denise, you're incorrect.

Nicenames changed the url to the galleries and to the categories, etc. It didn't change the actual URL to the .jpg

On October 10th, for example, I posted a link to a .jpg from my site. I copied the link by right-clicking and using "copy image location". The url to that image was "http://pix.aerog.com/photos/676466447_B5vRZ-XL.jpg"

Today the link to the same image is "http://pix.aerog.com/Private/Forum-Images-2/nassaupan1/676466447_B5vRZ-XL.jpg"

It's not just a matter of "nice names" because the url also includes the original filename of the image. "nassaupan1.jpg" was the original filename. It wasn't a gallery or category or an assigned nicename, it was a filename - yet it shows up in the URL.

I suspect it has something to do with the changes on the 15th, maybe with the planned possibility of pointing to images from multiple galleries... Whatever it is, it sucks.

Sheaf

Oct-23-2009, 08:46 AM

A good solution is to put it back the way it was PLEASE, or failing that give us the option of having the share button parse out all the data and show us just the "http://pix.aerog.com/photos/548697233_iHSsu-S-3.jpg" type link.

We released this again last night (it had some bugs before). It's a massive improvement to the SEO of all SmugMug images. We can certainly discuss having that extra feature on the share page though.

aerialphoto

Oct-23-2009, 09:38 AM

We released this again last night (it had some bugs before). It's a massive improvement to the SEO of all SmugMug images. We can certainly discuss having that extra feature on the share page though.

Sheaf, I'm sorry - instead of typical Smugmug goodness this is a smugmug FAIL.

Some comments about it:

The URL to each of my images now contains the original filename of that image. All that does for me is make the URLs longer and show the world my original filenames unnecessarily. Seriously - this is dumb.
I can rewrite each url with the old method myself for posting on forums, but every single image on my site still has the original filename embedded in the path.
Each image filename shows the entire path through my site to that image. If we're posting images on forums it conveniently shows everyone that I have multiple hidden galleries in a hidden category on my site. The fact that I just told the world that isnt the point but...yeah, I can manually rewrite each URL I post if I have to.
If we move an image from one gallery to another, but the original massivly long URL remains as a link on a website will the image get "lost"? It appears that the servers automatically find that filename then regenerate the URL based on it's current location on a Smugmug user's site. If that remains true then the problem of "lost" images shouldn't be a factor, but does doing all that regeneration of the URL put an unnecessary load on the smugmug servers and possibly cause longer load times downstream?
Using the previous naming scheme "xyzpdq.com/photos/name.jpg" was short, simple, never changed regardless of how many times you moved it, and worked fine.

Ideally I'd love to see an option in my gallery customization menu that lets me turn this "feature" on and off. "Hide Owner" accomplishes this but with all the other side effects of "hide owner" too.

As you can tell my biggest complaints are the massively long URLs and the inclusion of the original filename in the URL to every single image. It's not the end of the world but hey, this is Smugmug where we're accustomed to having a lot of control over how our sites operate and how they display our work. I have no control over this latest change and, frankly - it's almost a deal-breaker.

Please fix it!

SunGlo

Oct-23-2009, 11:30 AM

We released this again last night (it had some bugs before). It's a massive improvement to the SEO of all SmugMug images. We can certainly discuss having that extra feature on the share page though.

I had added a custom search to my website a couple of days ago...everything was working fine until I checked it this morning.

Suddenly, I have comment and rating boxes in the lower left side of the screen. I have both comments and rating turned off.

I removed the all of the custom search code from my footer. The comment/rate boxes were still displayed.

I added code to my CSS to NOT display comments and rating. The comment/rate boxes were still displayed.

It show's up everytime a gallery is accessed with my custom domain and is iffy with my smugmug domain.

There are other odd problems happening that begain back in August when you implemented "nicknames".

This is frustrating because we are modifying our sites and you are implementing new code that has the potential to affect our sites without notifying us. We then assume it's our code and have to do a lot of trouble shooting. It's hard to tell if it's something we've done or you've done.

Phil

www.sunglophoto.com (http://www.sunglophoto.com)
www.sunglo.smugmug.com (http://www.sunglo.smugmug.com)

http://www.sunglophoto.com/Licensed-Images/Linked-Images/Linked-Images/091023-Comment-Problem/690110752_We6qA-L-1.jpg

Andy

Oct-23-2009, 12:22 PM

Suddenly, I have comment and rating boxes in the lower left side of the screen. I have both comments and rating turned off.

Can you link me to the gallery where this happens on your site?

Andy

Oct-23-2009, 12:30 PM

Suddenly, I have comment and rating boxes in the lower left side of the screen. I have both comments and rating turned off.

I removed the all of the custom search

There's an error in your code, somewhere, but I'm not smart enough to find it :( Put a new thread in the customizing forum so the experts can help. I know it's an error in your code, because if you switch a gallery to appearance=SmugMug, thus removing your customizing, the comment boxes don't show up.

SunGlo

Oct-23-2009, 01:00 PM

Can you link me to the gallery where this happens on your site?

http://www.sunglophoto.com/Land-Sea-and-Air/Red-Sky-at-Night/92367_yebGk#544869407_EEjfP

SunGlo

Oct-23-2009, 01:02 PM

There's an error in your code, somewhere, but I'm not smart enough to find it :( Put a new thread in the customizing forum so the experts can help. I know it's an error in your code, because if you switch a gallery to appearance=SmugMug, thus removing your customizing, the comment boxes don't show up.

How does that explain the fact that this problem did not appear until this morning? Also, I removed all of the custom search code and the problem remained.

Andy

Oct-23-2009, 01:13 PM

How does that explain the fact that this problem did not appear until this morning? Also, I removed all of the custom search code and the problem remained.I do not know - but there's some sort of error we have to find it in your customizing....

jfriend

Oct-23-2009, 01:26 PM

http://www.sunglophoto.com/Land-Sea-and-Air/Red-Sky-at-Night/92367_yebGk#544869407_EEjfP Your custom footer has some HTML errors in it that are at least causing part of the problem.

First, you are missing a </table> tag to close the table. This can cause things after the table to have weird undefined behavior and if Smugmug just recently changed any of the HTML after your custom footer, things could have changed. Usually when a benign change causes a big problem to show up, it's because there was a previous error that you were getting lucky with. I haven't studied your custom footer code in detail, but you should make sure that every start tag has a corresponding finish tag <table> with </table>, <div> with </div>, <td> with </td>, etc...

Second, you have <tl> tags in your table. I have no idea what those are. What are you trying to accomplish with them. <tr> is for a row if that's what you meant to use.

Third, if you validate your CSS here (http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/#validate_by_input), you have a lot of CSS errors. I don't think they are responsible for this particular issue, but they may cause other problems now or in the future. In particular, you are using the background: attribute wrong by specifying only a color and you are using colors by name that are not universal standards. These issues occur hundreds of places in your CSS.

Allen

Oct-23-2009, 01:46 PM

...
Each image filename shows the entire path through my site to that image. If we're posting images on forums it conveniently shows everyone that I have multiple hidden galleries in a hidden category on my site. The fact that I just told the world that isnt the point but...yeah, I can manually rewrite each URL I post if I have to....
Please fix it!
Grabbing a photo link to use on forums and other external sites should not
expose the cat, sub-cat or gallery number/key. That is an invasion of
privacy if the photo is in an unlisted gallery, like giving out an unlisted
phone number. I use an unlisted gallery for links to forums and other
reasons and it has all kinds of garbage in it.

SunGlo

Oct-23-2009, 02:00 PM

Your custom footer has some HTML errors in it that are at least causing part of the problem.

First, you are missing a </table> tag to close the table. This can cause things after the table to have weird undefined behavior and if Smugmug just recently changed any of the HTML after your custom footer, things could have changed. Usually when a benign change causes a big problem to show up, it's because there was a previous error that you were getting lucky with. I haven't studied your custom footer code in detail, but you should make sure that every start tag has a corresponding finish tag <table> with </table>, <div> with </div>, <td> with </td>, etc...

Second, you have <tl> tags in your table. I have no idea what those are. What are you trying to accomplish with them. <tr> is for a row if that's what you meant to use.

Third, if you validate your CSS here (http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/#validate_by_input), you have a lot of CSS errors. I don't think they are responsible for this particular issue, but they may cause other problems now or in the future. In particular, you are using the background: attribute wrong by specifying only a color and you are using colors by name that are not universal standards. These issues occur hundreds of places in your CSS.

Thanks John,

The close table statement was there originally, but somewhere in my cleaning up and trouble shooting it was deleted. That appeared to be causing the problem...why it didn't show up until this morning...who knows.

The <tl> was a typo, it should have been <tr>.

I knew about the color names and have been slowly changing them out in my spare time. Same thing with any other errors, as I discover them a try to fix them.

I have no formal training on this, it's all been reading and experimenting so yes, I will make mistakes and yes, I do get frustrated.

I apologize if I offended anyone and thanks for getting me back on the strait and narrow.

Phil

jfriend

Oct-23-2009, 02:24 PM

Grabbing a photo link to use on forums and other external sites should not
expose the cat, sub-cat or gallery number/key. That is an invasion of
privacy if the photo is in an unlisted gallery, like giving out an unlisted
phone number. I use an unlisted gallery for links to forums and other
reasons and it has all kinds of garbage in it. Yeah, this seems wrong to me and huge change in the the privacy of the image URLs obtained by either right-click or via the Share button. I've filed a bug report here (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?p=1243517).

Andy

Oct-23-2009, 02:50 PM

I apologize if I offended anyone and thanks for getting me back on the strait and narrow.

PhilHow could you offend anyone by asking for help in a help forum :D That's what we're all here for.

hyachts

Oct-23-2009, 03:33 PM

Yeah, this seems wrong to me and huge change in the the privacy of the image URLs obtained by either right-click or via the Share button. I've filed a bug report here (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?p=1243517).

I'll have to agree that this is a huge negative. I very much liked the ability to share a single photo from anywhere on my sight without exposing my structure or hidden galleries.

Andy

Oct-23-2009, 04:16 PM

I'll have to agree that this is a huge negative.

it's a bug. We'll fix it.

Andy

Oct-23-2009, 04:37 PM

it's a bug. We'll fix it.
Fixed.

jfriend

Oct-23-2009, 04:54 PM

Fixed. That was quick. Nice response!

Erick L

Oct-23-2009, 05:06 PM

It's not fixed here.

Andy

Oct-23-2009, 05:16 PM

It's not fixed here.
Link? :ear

Erick L

Oct-23-2009, 05:18 PM

Grab any image you want. They all show the whole path. I'm talking about right-clicking, not using the share button.

jfriend

Oct-23-2009, 05:20 PM

Grab any image you want. They all show the whole path. I'm talking about right-clicking, not using the share button. Are you looking in an unlisted gallery - that's where I saw the change and expected the change? Public galleries are supposed to show the whole path.

Erick L

Oct-23-2009, 05:21 PM

Well, in that case I don't like it.

Andy

Oct-23-2009, 05:22 PM

Grab any image you want. They all show the whole path. I'm talking about right-clicking, not using the share button.
Show me an unlisted gallery
http://www.borealphoto.com/Animals/Oiseaux-Petites-images-Birds/8040702_RjGiw#523322472_bc5aJ

Example, there are two unlisted galleries in /Animals - both when you right click and view the link, you get a non-nicename url :)

http://www.borealphoto.com/Animals

Erick L

Oct-23-2009, 05:26 PM

Any way to opt out of nicenames for photos?

Andy

Oct-23-2009, 05:31 PM

Any way to opt out of nicenames for photos?
No, I'm sorry. But Unlisted, passworded galleries won't have nicename urls for photos. Our customers have overwhelmingly asked for better SEO and Google findability. This is part of it.

Erick L

Oct-23-2009, 05:33 PM

Does that mean you'll remove your description about being the "ultimate photo sharing" from my site too?

jfriend

Oct-23-2009, 05:39 PM

Any way to opt out of nicenames for photos? Just curious Erick. Why do you want to opt out of nicenames for photos?

Erick L

Oct-23-2009, 05:44 PM

- I don't want people tracking the source, unlisted or not.
- I don't want filenames showing.
- URL will be lost if the photo is moved.
- URL is ridiculously long.

Andy

Oct-23-2009, 05:59 PM

Does that mean you'll remove your description about being the "ultimate photo sharing" from my site too?
if you'd follow my advice that I have given over and over again :D

http://www.borealphoto.com/Animals/Oiseaux-Birds/3680469_MZ5sQ#658537206_s2uxn

example, that gallery has no description. So, you get ours in your search result.
http://img.skitch.com/20091024-fq372qeanee2mrjnm75mefg17.jpg

Add gallery descriptions to all your galleries. Watch "ultimate photo sharing" disappear. :deal

Oh and put a short descriptive description of you/your business in your bio box. :deal

http://www.smugmug.com/help/search-engines

Erick L

Oct-23-2009, 06:04 PM

I told you a hundred times that I don't want descriptions in my galleries. It is not needed, except to remove your description. Why doesn't SM just remove it?

jfriend

Oct-23-2009, 06:04 PM

- I don't want people tracking the source, unlisted or not.
- I don't want filenames showing.
- URL will be lost if the photo is moved.
- URL is ridiculously long.

You make a few too many assumptions here.

If you don't want people to know the source, then you have the option of linking to images in unlisted galleries. You also have the option of linking to a non-nicename URL from any gallery. For example, this is the nicename link to a public image of mine: http://jfriend.smugmug.com/Kenya/Highlights/Landscapes/JF23827/344291068_HdnTo-L.jpg (http://jfriend.smugmug.com/Kenya/Highlights/Landscapes/JF23827/344291068_HdnTo-L.jpg) But, you can always just modify it yourself to link to the non-nicename one and it links to the same image: http://jfriend.smugmug.com/photos/344291068_HdnTo-L.jpg (http://jfriend.smugmug.com/photos/344291068_HdnTo-L.jpg) as it works too. This way you get a choice. You can still use the old style links if you want.
Actually, the URL will not be lost if the image is moved. The nicename part of the URL is not used if the image ID and key is there. Try it yourself. This mangled URL from about: http://jfriend.smugmug.com/xxKenya/xxHighlights/xxLandscapes/xxJF23827/344291068_HdnTo-L.jpg (http://jfriend.smugmug.com/xxKenya/xxHighlights/xxLandscapes/xxJF23827/344291068_HdnTo-L.jpg) will still work. Images can be moved and URLs will not stop working if the image is moved. The same is true of a gallery link that has category and subcategory in it. As long as you also have the gallery number, the category and sub-category can change and the link will still take you to the right gallery.
URLs are long (that's how the niceness for SEO gets in them). You can use the shorter version if you want.

Erick L

Oct-23-2009, 06:08 PM

You make a few too many assumptions here.

If you don't want people to know the source, then you have the option of linking to images in unlisted galleries.

You also have the option of linking to a non-nicename URL from any gallery. For example, this is the nicename link to a public image of mine:

http://jfriend.smugmug.com/Kenya/Highlights/Landscapes/JF23827/344291068_HdnTo-L.jpg (http://jfriend.smugmug.com/Kenya/Highlights/Landscapes/JF23827/344291068_HdnTo-L.jpg)

But, you can always just modify it yourself to link to the non-nicename one and it links to the same image:

http://jfriend.smugmug.com/photos/344291068_HdnTo-L.jpg (http://jfriend.smugmug.com/photos/344291068_HdnTo-L.jpg)

as it works too. This way you get a choice. You can still use the old style links if you want.

Actually, the URL will not be lost if the image is moved. The nicename part of the URL is not used if the image ID and key is there. Try it yourself. This mangled URL from about:

http://jfriend.smugmug.com/xxKenya/xxHighlights/xxLandscapes/xxJF23827/344291068_HdnTo-L.jpg (http://jfriend.smugmug.com/xxKenya/xxHighlights/xxLandscapes/xxJF23827/344291068_HdnTo-L.jpg)

will still work. Images can be moved and URLs will not stop working if the image is moved. The same is true of a gallery link that has category and subcategory in it. As long as you also have the gallery number, the category and sub-category can change and the link will still take you to the right gallery.

URLs are long (that's how the niceness for SEO gets in them). You can use the shorter version if you want.

I want to opt out so I don't have to link from unlisted galleries or use the old URL. That's the point.

jfriend

Oct-23-2009, 06:09 PM

I want to opt out so I don't have to link from unlisted galleries or use the old URL. That's the point. You can opt out by just using the old URL. The solution is there if you want it. Smugmug did think this through fairly thoroughly. Perhaps can't please 100% of the folks 100% of the time, but it's a generally good change and those that want to use old style links have that option.

Your response makes me regret taking the time to explain all your options to you. I'm just a volunteer here trying to help offer solutions.

Andy

Oct-23-2009, 06:10 PM

I told you a hundred times that I don't want descriptions in my galleries. It is not needed, except to remove your description. Why doesn't SM just remove it?I'm sorry, I wish you'd take my advice and get better search results :(

I wish I had a better answer, Erick. I'm really sorry.

Erick L

Oct-23-2009, 06:16 PM

I'm sorry, I wish you'd take my advice and get better search results :(

It won't get me better results.

I already have a proper site description fomr DMOZ, no tricks needed. Google uses it.

Since the day I joined, I asked SM to add proper titles before and I was told "title tags are not life changing". A few weeks later SM was raving about titles and fixed it properly about a year later. Sorry Andy, I don't take SEO advice from SM.

Andy

Oct-23-2009, 06:17 PM

Sorry Andy, I don't take SEO advice from SM.
I'm really sorry you feel this way :(

Erick L

Oct-23-2009, 06:17 PM

You can opt out by just using the old URL. The solution is there if you want it. Smugmug did think this through fairly thoroughly. Perhaps can't please 100% of the folks 100% of the time, but it's a generally good change and those that want to use old style links have that option.

Your response makes me regret taking the time to explain all your options to you. I'm just a volunteer here trying to help offer solutions.

I'm sorry jfriend. I already knew the options. You asked why I want to opt out and I answered. Using the old url is more work.

Erick L

Oct-23-2009, 06:22 PM

I'm really sorry you feel this way :(

You still haven't answered my question: WHY doesn't SM remove it's description? Don't tell me what I should do. SM announced with trumpets how it removed its paw from Pro accounts. Why is this still here?

Andy

Oct-23-2009, 06:27 PM

You still haven't answered my question: WHY doesn't SM remove it's description? Don't tell me what I should do. SM announced with trumpets how it removed its paw from Pro accounts. Why is this still here?Erick, it may change, but there are so many other things more important than this right now on our plate. Especially since adding a description helps findability. Most folks are thrilled to see their own description being found by google and being listed in their results.

Erick L

Oct-23-2009, 07:56 PM

Erick, it may change, but there are so many other things more important than this right now on our plate. Especially since adding a description helps findability. Most folks are thrilled to see their own description being found by google and being listed in their results.

It does not help findability. It only serves for display in the SERP, not for being found. This is from Google (http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2007/09/improve-snippets-with-meta-description.html):

And it's worth noting that while accurate meta descriptions can improve clickthrough, they won't affect your ranking within search results.

I told you a hundred times that Google will use page content if it can't find a description. In fact, Google is smart enough to figure SM description is bogus and doesn't always include it. Google was also smart enough to use my DMOZ description. I'm trilled by that and it would be a whole lot easier if SM would just step aside.

See how smart Google is in the first result. People see relevent, to-the-point, nothing-but-content text and click. Unfortunatly, SM gets in the way for the second result, and people don't click:

http://www.borealphoto.com/photos/690484074_x3N54-M.jpg

WinsomeWorks

Oct-23-2009, 10:30 PM

[quote]It does not help findability. It only serves for display in the SERP, not for being found. This is from Google (http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2007/09/improve-snippets-with-meta-description.html):
....I told you a hundred times that Google will use page content if it can't find a description. .... Goodness. This "I told you a hundred times" thing gets a little old. People here are trying to be patient and helpful, Erick, and that's what they do here day in & day out. They're fixing and improving things faster than most of us can even keep up. This one change may be worse for you somehow (although I still haven't figured out what's so awful about it) but it would be pretty tough to allow everyone ways of opting out of each & every change here, especially when there are work-arounds. I'm trying to be understanding, but I just think you'll have better communication here if you take a less heated & more mature-sounding approach, even though everyone so far has been quite even-handed, imho. Your photos will speak for themselves even with this change, but only if you let them. Just my 2 cents, & when I get out-of-hand, you're welcome to remind me of the same! :thumb

Erick L

Oct-23-2009, 11:34 PM

In the words of SM, "I'm sorry you feel that way", WinsomeWorks. If you actually read my posts in this thread, you'd see that I stated that I don't like the change, the reasons I don't like it and if there's a way to opt out. And that was that. The rest, including the part where you quoted me, doesn't have anything to do with the change but with SM's meta-description and SM's SEO in general.

aerialphoto

Oct-24-2009, 09:00 AM

Since I started this mess I thought I'd post an update:

Yes - the links to images in unlisted galleries is fixed. THANKS

But I'm still going to complain about the inclusion of the original filename in the URL to the images in public galleries.

I understand the SEO issue. If I rename my files before I upload them to something like "gw_bridge_oct09.jpg" then maybe it'll get indexed better. But seriously, what genius at SM can explain how "DSC7209bw2" in the URL offers anything for me in terms of SEO?

The answer is simple: It doesn't. All it does is reveal my original filenames which I don't want. It inconveniently requires me to go back and rename-and-reupload every single public image on my site to make the urls relevant (or to hide whatever generic names I might have used in the past), and the additional requirement that I rename every single image I upload in the future.

Sorry guys. FAIL. Big time.

Andy

Oct-24-2009, 09:11 AM

Sorry guys. FAIL. Big time.
I'm really sorry- we've been asked for a long time for this. Better SEO is something that's paramount for so many people. And a photo named lightning-flying-unicorns.jpg will be found so much easier than DSC_1764.jpg.

Yes, your photos that have no descriptive filenames on your site now, don't benefit from this. But any that you add in the future with them, will.

jfriend

Oct-24-2009, 09:20 AM

aerialphoto

Oct-24-2009, 10:31 AM

I'm really sorry- we've been asked for a long time for this. Better SEO is something that's paramount for so many people.

I'm sorry too Andy. Not having an option to turn this "feature" off is overwhelmingly dumb and you guys have just caused me to do a massive amount of work to make things the way I want.

Time to move on I guess.

aerialphoto

Oct-24-2009, 10:48 AM

you can just remove the original filename part from the link and the link works just fine so it doesn't have to pollute external links that you post yourself.

Yes but if anyone goes to that link directly smugmug automatically regenerates the URL to include the original filename. The only way around it is to replace everything in the path to "/photos/". Meanwhile everything on my smugmug site still includes the filenames.

Thanks for the suggestion though :)

Erick L

Oct-25-2009, 12:53 AM

aerialphoto

Oct-25-2009, 05:15 AM

Well - ok. Yesterday I fully intended on pulling everything off my smugmug site to be reloaded on a competitor's site. Aside from the obvious custom layout features on SM I noticed the images just plain didn't look as good. The additional sharpening we can add here (with custom tweaks) make the smaller images look so much better. I'd forgotten about that, big kudos to SM for even thinking about adding it when they did.

That frankly made my complaints just a little less significant.

An observation though: My unlisted galleries generate the older style URLs pretty much the way I like it. Simply making an unlisted gallery "public" switched the new naming convention "on" instantly.

It seems to me that if the URL naming scheme can be toggled that easily then it shouldn't be that big a challenge to add an additional option in the gallery customization to switch the URL naming in any gallery.

Yeah yeah, I can hear mumblings now "people don't like feature bloat". Whatever...I'd like to see the option - take it as a request.

Andy

Oct-25-2009, 05:18 AM

Yeah yeah, I can hear mumblings now "people don't like feature bloat". Whatever...I'd like to see the option - take it as a request.This is a HUGE factor. Ever time we add a button, knob, dial, setting- it complicates the UI, help pages, our testing process, our development process. Each addition has huge impact and ripple effect. We must consider these very seriously (and do) before adding anything.

Thanks for being so passionate about this. Add your voice to here please, too: http://smugmug.uservoice.com

Allen

Oct-25-2009, 08:39 AM

Are the wiki pages down? Can't seem to get to any of them. Like this one.
Flash Slideshow - SmugMug Wiki (http://wiki.smugmug.net/display/SmugMug/Flash+Slideshow)

Andy

Oct-25-2009, 09:14 AM

Are the wiki pages down? Can't seem to get to any of them. Like this one.
Flash Slideshow - SmugMug Wiki (http://wiki.smugmug.net/display/SmugMug/Flash+Slideshow)
Working here. Try again?

Allen

Oct-25-2009, 11:18 PM

Working here. Try again?
Nope, neither FF, Flock or IE8 will bring up the page. Wonder if some
setting in stupid Vista is blocking it.

jfriend

Oct-26-2009, 12:58 AM

Nope, neither FF, Flock or IE8 will bring up the page. Wonder if some
setting in stupid Vista is blocking it. Like for Andy, the page comes up for me. Sounds like you should try from another computer somewhere to figure out if it's your computer, ISP or DNS.

aerialphoto

Oct-26-2009, 05:28 AM

Works fine here, both IE and FF on Windows-7

pilotdave

Oct-29-2009, 12:21 PM

I was thinking about this new feature that is designed to improve image search optimization, and I decided that I don't like the way it's been implemented. The problem is its use of filenames for picking out key words to add to the URL.

I wish smugmug would stop relying on our original filenames for anything. I think it's a bad practice. If I uploaded files to smugmug here and there every once in a while, I might give each one a nice descriptive unique name. But like many smugmug users, I upload files in bulk. 100+ at a time, usually.

I do what smugmug recommends and caption and keyword each file. I do not give each file a descriptive filename... that seems like a giant waste of time. Filenames happen in bulk. For a while I was using filenames straight from the camera... IMG_1234.jpg for example. That's got advantages and disadvantages as far as smugmug is concerned. It was nice that "1234" didn't become a junk keyword, since smugmug is smart enough to filter out filenames that start with IMG. The disadvantage, I found, is that the arrange tool won't sort those filenames alphabetically.

So I started renaming my files as they got imported... I use YYYY-MM-DD_1234.jpg format. I really like this for finding images on my computer. I take a lot of pictures and have at least 3 different IMG_1234.jpgs in different folders. Unique names are...unique. Much better. But then I get keywords like "1234." Ugh, can't win.

So this new feature comes along. I decide to change my file naming scheme to try to play along. I'll add a keyword to my filenames. But of course they're all getting the same keyword upon import... I'm not renaming all those files. That would be a waste of time.

So here I am, creating junky new keywords i need to remove after upload AND polutting the image search engines' databases by giving my photos filenames that aren't really correct.

Smugmug doesn't let me edit filenames (after uploading), but it does let me edit keywords. Why don't we use them appropriately? I want search engines to find my captions and keywords. Why would i want image searches to find my filenames?? I spent all that time keywording for a reason!

So how about giving us some control over what words end up in the URL? Our keywords would be a good start.

Let's stop creating junk from bulk-created filenames!

Dave