Visitor View bumps me back to homepage

[WinsomeWorks]

I'm pretty sure this has been reported or discussed a long while ago, but I can't find it, and it's still not resolved anyway. When I click on "Visitor View" when on a galleries or sub-categories page, I get bumped back to my homepage, then have to navigate back to the page I wanted. (there's not even a "take me back to the page I was viewing" notice) This has happened for weeks or months or more. I use FF 3.5.4 on Windows Vista. I just tried it on IE 8 & get the same result.

Incidentally (or not), I truly miss the Visitor View button that used to be visible when inside a gallery. That's the main place people would want that view anyway, & it's no longer available! (I haven't figured out how to place a request in the new system, so that's why I mention it here).

[docwalker]

I will check into it. Personally I do not use the visitor view much. I find that it is better for me at least to use 2 browsers. One logged in and one logged out. That way I can make a change and view it by refreshing the second browser. Thanks for pointing it out. :thumb

[Andy]

I'm pretty sure this has been reported or discussed a long while ago, but I can't find it, and it's still not resolved anyway. When I click on "Visitor View" when on a galleries or sub-categories page, I get bumped back to my homepage, then have to navigate back to the page I wanted. (there's not even a "take me back to the page I was viewing" notice) This has happened for weeks or months or more. I use FF 3.5.4 on Windows Vista. I just tried it on IE 8 & get the same result.

Incidentally (or not), I truly miss the Visitor View button that used to be visible when inside a gallery. That's the main place people would want that view anyway, & it's no longer available! (I haven't figured out how to place a request in the new system, so that's why I mention it here).Exactly where please? Please give us links and exact 1-2-3 steps to reproduce so we can best help, thanks!

And, as Doc said - if you are a hi-powered user like yourself, use two browsers like we do. One logged in, and one logged out. It's the very best way to see your site as a visitor. It costs nothing, and it's dead-simple.

[Andy]

Anna Lisa, never mind on the links, we've bugged it. It will be fixed!

[WinsomeWorks]

Anna Lisa, never mind on the links, we've bugged it. It will be fixed!Cool! Not a major biggie, just one-of-those-things!

[WinsomeWorks]

Bump. This is still happening. I'm pretty sure this has been reported or discussed a long while ago, but I can't find it, and it's still not resolved anyway. When I click on "Visitor View" when on a galleries or sub-categories page, I get bumped back to my homepage, then have to navigate back to the page I wanted. (there's not even a "take me back to the page I was viewing" notice) This has happened for weeks or months or more. I use FF 3.5.4 on Windows Vista. I just tried it on IE 8 & get the same result.

Incidentally (or not), I truly miss the Visitor View button that used to be visible when inside a gallery. That's the main place people would want that view anyway, & it's no longer available! (I haven't figured out how to place a request in the new system, so that's why I mention it here).

[Andy]

Yes, fixed internally it'll go out live, soon.

[WinsomeWorks]

I will check into it. Personally I do not use the visitor view much. I find that it is better for me at least to use 2 browsers. One logged in and one logged out. That way I can make a change and view it by refreshing the second browser. Thanks for pointing it out. :thumb I knew this does not work well for me (the 2-browser method) but I couldn't think why until I was trying it recently. Here's why: Normally when I'm still working on a gallery (rotating, color-correcting, rotating, arranging, etc.) I keep it unlisted because I don't want it "going live" til it's ready. So the problem is, logging out takes you off that page temporarily & then sometimes you can't see the gallery you want to see anymore because it's unlisted!(i.e. invisible when logged out) Having the Visitor View button on EVERY page-- gallery, sub-category, home, etc. made it SO-o-o much simpler to just quickly check how it was looking. It was also much better for arranging. The Visitor View still let you see an unlisted gallery, & I assume that's cause it didn't bump you off your gallery's pages to switch to that view. It simply refreshed to Visitor, and voila! So I say, PLEASE bring back Visitor View on every page the way we used to have it in the good old days! :wink

[jfriend]

I knew this does not work well for me (the 2-browser method) but I couldn't think why until I was trying it recently. Here's why: Normally when I'm still working on a gallery (rotating, color-correcting, rotating, arranging, etc.) I keep it unlisted because I don't want it "going live" til it's ready. So the problem is, logging out takes you off that page temporarily & then sometimes you can't see the gallery you want to see anymore because it's unlisted!(i.e. invisible when logged out) Having the Visitor View button on EVERY page-- gallery, sub-category, home, etc. made it SO-o-o much simpler to just quickly check how it was looking. It was also much better for arranging. The Visitor View still let you see an unlisted gallery, & I assume that's cause it didn't bump you off your gallery's pages to switch to that view. It simply refreshed to Visitor, and voila! So I say, PLEASE bring back Visitor View on every page the way we used to have it in the good old days! :wink The issue with visitor view is that it's a simulation. It is not exact. You can always copy/paste an unlisted gallery URL from one browser to another. In Firefox, I have the IEView add-on which makes it even easier. I just right-click in the loggedin page in Firefox and select View in IE and up it opens in IE without me logged in. It's as easy as Visitor View and works for every page on your site (actually it works for every page in the internet).

[WinsomeWorks]

The issue with visitor view is that it's a simulation. It is not exact. You can always copy/paste an unlisted gallery URL from one browser to another. In Firefox, I have the IEView add-on which makes it even easier. I just right-click in the loggedin page in Firefox and select View in IE and up it opens in IE without me logged in. It's as easy as Visitor View and works for every page on your site (actually it works for every page in the internet).Hmm, I'm not completely sure I'm following this, but I think I know what you mean. The other thing I failed to mention is that it slows things down to have a bunch of pages open, especially if you're doing work on them & are sharing internet service with several other computers in the household. I don't know... to me, Visitor View within each gallery page was just so handy, & if it's going to be there at all, why not have it working well & working in the handy way it used to work.... so I'm hoping it gets fixed.

[SamirD]

So I say, PLEASE bring back Visitor View on every page the way we used to have it in the good old days! :winkI agree with this too. We need to add this to smugmug.uservoice.com and start voting. :thumb

[WinsomeWorks]

I agree with this too. We need to add this to smugmug.uservoice.com and start voting. :thumbI think I've already added it to uservoice. If I can find it, I'll post back here so that you can vote on it & help us all out!

[Andy]

I knew this does not work well for me (the 2-browser method) but I couldn't think why until I was trying it recently. Here's why: Normally when I'm still working on a gallery (rotating, color-correcting, rotating, arranging, etc.) I keep it unlisted because I don't want it "going live" til it's ready. So the problem is, logging out takes you off that page temporarily & then sometimes you can't see the gallery you want to see anymore because it's unlisted!(i.e. invisible when logged out) Having the Visitor View button on EVERY page-- gallery, sub-category, home, etc. made it SO-o-o much simpler to just quickly check how it was looking. It was also much better for arranging. The Visitor View still let you see an unlisted gallery, & I assume that's cause it didn't bump you off your gallery's pages to switch to that view. It simply refreshed to Visitor, and voila! So I say, PLEASE bring back Visitor View on every page the way we used to have it in the good old days! :winkAnna Lisa, as someone who uses SmugMug even more than you do (hard to believe, eh? :wink ), I really disagree. Please do what we do - use two browsers, you'll be much happier! Simply copy the url of the unlisted gallery from the logged in browser's address bar and paste it to the 2nd browser, which is logged out. I'm telling you, in no time, you'll be a pro at it. It's dead simple, and browsers are so easy to download and use.

For a 2nd browser, try Firefox, Google Chrome, Safari (all three are cross platform and work on Macs or PCs).

[SamirD]

Visitor view is a very handy feature when it is available to be used. I used to do the dual browser method and found the cut and pasting of urls a bit cumbersome, even though I can do it less than a second with keyboard shortcuts. Clicking visitor view takes the hassle out of the equation, and also removes any possibility of cut and pasting the wrong url (when working on multiple galleries). The visitor view button or feature just needs to be more accessible. I loved it when it first became a feature and am a die hard fan of it.

[WinsomeWorks]

Anna Lisa, as someone who uses SmugMug even more than you do (hard to believe, eh? :wink ), I really disagree. Please do what we do - use two browsers, you'll be much happier! Simply copy the url of the unlisted gallery from the logged in browser's address bar and paste it to the 2nd browser, which is logged out. I'm telling you, in no time, you'll be a pro at it. It's dead simple, and browsers are so easy to download and use.

For a 2nd browser, try Firefox, Google Chrome, Safari (all three are cross platform and work on Macs or PCs). I already have 2 other browsers besides FF, my usual. I have IE & Google. I've already done this kind of thing, but there is no way it's quicker than the old Visitor View button in the gallery. Is there some reason why this has become a problem to install, when it was accessible before? The other problem with this method is that I do not want to compare the galleries in two different browsers-- often, seeing them in the same browser for comparison is exactly the point! Copying and pasting URLs faster than clicking a button? Sorry, but I don't get that at all!

[WinsomeWorks]

Visitor view is a very handy feature when it is available to be used. I used to do the dual browser method and found the cut and pasting of urls a bit cumbersome, even though I can do it less than a second with keyboard shortcuts. Clicking visitor view takes the hassle out of the equation, and also removes any possibility of cut and pasting the wrong url (when working on multiple galleries). The visitor view button or feature just needs to be more accessible. I loved it when it first became a feature and am a die hard fan of it. Amen, Samir.

[Andy]

I already have 2 other browsers besides FF, my usual. I have IE & Google. I've already done this kind of thing, but there is no way it's quicker than the old Visitor View button in the gallery. Is there some reason why this has become a problem to install, when it was accessible before? The other problem with this method is that I do not want to compare the galleries in two different browsers-- often, seeing them in the same browser for comparison is exactly the point! Copying and pasting URLs faster than clicking a button? Sorry, but I don't get that at all!
Anna Lisa, visitor view is sitll a simulation - since there's the whole visitor view div up top.

[SamirD]

Amen, Samir.Did you ever find a listing for this on uservoice?

[WinsomeWorks]

Did you ever find a listing for this on uservoice? Yes, it's here, and it looks like you already voted for it, or at least commented on it! http://smugmug.uservoice.com/forums/17723-smugmug/suggestions/379918-put-the-visitor-view-button-on-every-page

[SamirD]

Yes, it's here, and it looks like you already voted for it, or at least commented on it! http://smugmug.uservoice.com/forums/17723-smugmug/suggestions/379918-put-the-visitor-view-button-on-every-pageSo for those that want this feature back, vote! :thumb

[WinsomeWorks]

Anna Lisa, visitor view is sitll a simulation - since there's the whole visitor view div up top. I understand that, but maybe I don't understand if/why it should bother me. It always served me well in the past... If I felt the need to do a final check when I was finished working on an important gallery such as a wedding, etc., I simply logged out and looked at it in an un-simulated way. One main point here that I think some of you can tend to overlook since you're often communicating with photographers here on the forums (or even on help) who are at least moderately computer-savvy: plenty of people using this site just need the simplest, most obvious way of doing something!

Think about your users: I doubt most have 2 browsers, and many would have no clue as to why they would want more than one. And why should they have to download a browser just to do a task that was once available through a simple button on the page? I think your members love that solutions happen on this site, but not all love to wade through forums or answers that start sounding complicated, and plenty would rather spend much more time on photography and much less time figuring out mundane details of how to get the results well-displayed. So... just saying: the lovely little button & all simple solutions like it, if possible are nearly always going to be much more attractive to your members, whatever their membership level. If there's a good reason why it's no longer offered, maybe just stating that reason would help us understand why something that was once here is gone, since I doubt most members will ever see anything but the Visitor View button within a gallery as the most user-friendly solution amongst all the others mentioned.

I'm not trying to be stubborn-- just practical. Even of the several folks I know personally who are members here, I know only one who's more savvy with this stuff than I am, yet I already consider myself quite low on the totem pole.

[Pupator]

Why does Smugmug offer the feature if the company line when a customer tells you its broken is to tell them not to use the feature but to do something else? That's really, really odd. Either fix the feature so that it works properly or drop the feature all-together. Forcing someone to defend the need for one of your features to work properly (when you've admitted there's a bug) is silly. :rolleyes

[denisegoldberg]

...I doubt most have 2 browsers, and many would have no clue as to why they would want more than one.
Different browsers often render sites in different ways. They shouldn't, but the fact remains that they do.

As a site developer, you should always be checking the looks of your site in as many browsers as are available to you, likely gated by browser availability in the computer environment you are using. Browsers are free, easily downloadable and installable.

--- Denise

[SamirD]

Why does Smugmug offer the feature if the company line when a customer tells you its broken is to tell them not to use the feature but to do something else? That's really, really odd. Either fix the feature so that it works properly or drop the feature all-together. Forcing someone to defend the need for one of your features to work properly (when you've admitted there's a bug) is silly. :rolleyesI agree. It does seem odd, now that I think about it. :scratch
Different browsers often render sites in different ways. They shouldn't, but the fact remains that they do.

As a site developer, you should always be checking the looks of your site in as many browsers as are available to you, likely gated by browser availability in the computer environment you are using. Browsers are free, easily downloadable and installable.

--- DeniseSite developer, yes. Photographer using SM with default themes, I disagree. If you're using default themes on SM, these have already been cross-browser tested (I'm assuming), so there should be no need for any further testing.

[denisegoldberg]

Site developer, yes. Photographer using SM with default themes, I disagree. If you're using default themes on SM, these have already been cross-browser tested (I'm assuming), so there should be no need for any further testing.
Ah, but the OP is using a customized site.

--- Denise

[SamirD]

Ah, but the OP is using a customized site.

--- DeniseOkay, I agree with you if the site is customized. But do you think cross-browser testing is necessary every time someone is working on a gallery? :dunno

[denisegoldberg]

Okay, I agree with you if the site is customized. But do you think cross-browser testing is necessary every time someone is working on a gallery?
If the site does not include any customization it should not be necessary. But if there is any customization at all, then yes, I do think it is necessary.

I understand the annoyance people have expressed with visitor view. I used it when it first was released, but I very quickly stopped. Because there is an extra div at the top of the screen, you are not seeing just your site. I don't believe it is a good testing tool. Yes, you can get a sanity check. But I don't think that's good enough.

--- Denise

[SamirD]

If the site does not include any customization it should not be necessary. But if there is any customization at all, then yes, I do think it is necessary.

I understand the annoyance people have expressed with visitor view. I used it when it first was released, but I very quickly stopped. Because there is an extra div at the top of the screen, you are not seeing just your site. I don't believe it is a good testing tool. Yes, you can get a sanity check. But I don't think that's good enough.

--- DeniseI can see where your points are valid. But there's many of us that have very cookie-cutter customization and just need to see which images the client will see without the whole dual browser thing. Visitor view is a handy feature for this, but like someone said earlier, if it's not going to be supported, just completely eliminate it.

[caroline]

Hi folks,
Think about your users: I doubt most have 2 browsers, and many would have no clue as to why they would want more than one.

Really? ? I've always run at least 2 browsers, I thought it was normal housekeeping to check your site in other browsers, but if you've customized your Smugmug site as Denise say's it is necessary

If the site does not include any customization it should not be necessary. But if there is any customization at all, then yes, I do think it is necessary.
--- Denise

You can try using http://browsershots.org/ to see the differences between browsers.

Caroline

[SamirD]

I've always run at least 2 browsers, I thought it was normal housekeeping to check your site in other browsers...Are you changing your customization each time you're working on a gallery? If so, then it would be prudent to do a cross-browser check. If not, then checking it once is enough. There's no need to check it each time photos are added to a gallery with that theme. It's just extra work for nothing.
You can try using http://browsershots.org/ to see the differences between browsers.Seems like a great site, but I kept just getting errors when trying to use it. :scratch

[WinsomeWorks]

Different browsers often render sites in different ways. They shouldn't, but the fact remains that they do.

As a site developer, you should always be checking the looks of your site in as many browsers as are available to you, likely gated by browser availability in the computer environment you are using. Browsers are free, easily downloadable and installable.

--- Denise I was never saying that I don't ever check my site in other browsers. In fact, I said that I do sometimes, especially if it's an important gallery. In actuality, I will often check how things look in other browsers when I'm finished working on lots of galleries. However, that is not at all the point of the discussion here, nor is it the point of this thread. The point is, obviously many users here (yes, maybe more who don't have customization, but what does it matter?) do not bother to do this, nor should they need to for the task at hand. All we are asking is to have the simplicity of the VisitorView button on each gallery, the way it used to be. When doing a lot of work on a gallery and wanting a quick & easy check many times throughout ones process of organizing, hiding photos, etc. that old button was simply painless, obvious and clear. It's not some one-time check we're talking about here. Why should the average user here need to come to the forums to find out how to do this logged-in, logged-out thing with two browsers, and then many folks don't even have 2 browsers? It's just silly. Please understand, people... this isn't about "normal housekeeping"-- the main use for that great feature was during the initial set-up of galleries when we're doing lots of shuffling, etc!

Also, the argument is not whether someone should or shouldn't be checking in 2 browsers. It's about the reality that many people won't. And it's also this (somewhat along the lines of what Pupator said, but not quite): Ahem... the feature once worked!! It was great!! Now we still have it, but not on each page. If there's a good reason why not, couldn't we just hear from admins why not?? And if there's no good reason, then why not just simplify things and bring it back? Many highly computer-savvy folks here just don't seem to understand that not everyone using this site wants to spend their life figuring out alternate ways to do something they could once do at the touch of one button! :bash

[Dan7312]

In Windows you can run two different instances of the same brower, one logged in and one not logged. The trick is to be running each as a different user.

To do this you will need to add another user to your system, and then use the "runas" utility to run the other instance of your browser. This will start up the browser with a different credentials and a different set of cookies.

The easiest way to do this is to add a shortcut that looks something like:

http://www.danalphotos.com/Other/temp/ies/772264627_H688K-L.png

In the shortcut "Daniel" is the name of a user I added so that I can run stuff with a separate identity from the one I am using. When you double click this shortcut you will be asked for a password, in this example the password for user "Daniel", like this:

http://www.danalphotos.com/Other/temp/ie-start/772274241_Xq5oR-M.png

I do a lot of development and I use this so I can see how something runs without all the privleges I have when running development tools. But the key thing is that that it acts like a different user with a different set of cookies so it won't look to SmugMug like you are logged in..


pro at it. It's dead simple, and browsers are so easy to download and use.

For a 2nd browser, try Firefox, Google Chrome, Safari (all three are cross platform and work on Macs or PCs).

[SamirD]

In Windows you can run two different instances of the same brower, one logged in and one not logged. The trick is to be running each as a different user.Actually, as long as you launch a completely separate instance of IE, they don't share the cookies, so that works too. But it uses twice the memory (or 3x if you launch 3, etc.), so be wary of that.

But like WinsomeWorks said, that's not the point of the discussion here. Visitor View is a feature, and a good one too. It's just not everywhere it used to be, and the request is to bring it back. Not alternate ways to do something similar, not different ways to do something 'better', just a way to do what it once did.

[WinsomeWorks]

Actually, as long as you launch a completely separate instance of IE, they don't share the cookies, so that works too. But it uses twice the memory (or 3x if you launch 3, etc.), so be wary of that.

But like WinsomeWorks said, that's not the point of the discussion here. Visitor View is a feature, and a good one too. It's just not everywhere it used to be, and the request is to bring it back. Not alternate ways to do something similar, not different ways to do something 'better', just a way to do what it once did. Thank you, SamirD. This point seems to be getting lost! Aaaagh!