Frustrated with the categories system

[fourseasons]

It is very hard to organize and there are too many categories. I didn't mind at first but as the collection increased it's become a major major headache to organize!. :cry
Won't smugmug dump this system and apply a more friendly system such as "folder tree" where one can create folders in folders?
Please smugmug, I know I am not the only one who's frustrated! :cry
Anyone else feels the same way that I do here??

-FS-

[Mike Lane]

It is very hard to organize and there are too many categories. I didn't mind at first but as the collection increased it's become a major major headache to organize!. :cry
Won't smugmug dump this system and apply a more friendly system such as "folder tree" where one can create folders in folders?
Please smugmug, I know I am not the only one who's frustrated! :cry
Anyone else feels the same way that I do here??

-FS-
Hmmm. Actually for my purposes, I'm finding the category system to be just fine. Actually I could probably use it a bit better come to think of it (and maybe I will eventually). Mostly I like the idea of using keywords more than categories any how.

[Khaos]

I don't feel that way. The system works for me. With keywords, sharegroups, and the ability to create your own categories and subcategories, I have everything thing I need to organize my pics.

[fourseasons]

Fair enough, so far two pro replies on the current sytem, but I also found similar gripes on other headers. I guess depending on the purpose it can be just fine or a major headache, I still wish for an easier-to-organize system compared to how it currently is.

-FS-

[JamesJWeg]

I would like something better as well, but I understand thier reasoning behind it. I feel that one more level would cut problems through the fact that each level would have less choices. I really have to spend some time with it, I feel like mine is a complete mess. How about some of the guys who say they like it as is sharing thier ideas on how to organize. A few good ideas and and examples might make several of us a little happier.

James.

[Netgarden]

You don't have to choose any certain catagory. I put most of mine under the Photography catagory. I don't like the confusion of hopping around all over. Clicks are of the essence, so thats why I do it this way.:dunno

I do wish however, that I could have thumbnails of my albums all on one page rather than all in a row x 2's. Is that possible? [like Pbase?] Like 6 across and 8 down.?
thanks

Fair enough, so far two pro replies on the current sytem, but I also found similar gripes on other headers. I guess depending on the purpose it can be just fine or a major headache, I still wish for an easier-to-organize system compared to how it currently is.

-FS-

[JamesJWeg]

I am wondering how the like/dislike of the current system lines up with number of photo's/galleries in the account? Any Idea? Maybe some people just have to dang many photo's.

James.

[mercphoto]

Mostly I like the idea of using keywords more than categories any how.
I agree. Once I learned how to use keywords my life got much simpler. I think there are still a few issues with keywords that I would like to see changed. But, keywords are cool and powerful.

[Maki]

I agree. Once I learned how to use keywords my life got much simpler. I think there are still a few issues with keywords that I would like to see changed. But, keywords are cool and powerful.
Keywords are of no use if galleries are protected though...

[Shane Canfield]

fourseasons, I agree with you...the current system is not well laid out and I disagree with those that that say keywords are better. Keywords are never the primary searching or organizing method in any complex organizing system. What you suggest would be better and is the method used by PhotoReflect, Photosite, Ofoto, and other nearly all other photo sites including, Fred Miranda and PBase. As you suggest, a tree or hierarchical system would be far more intuitive, logical, and easier to use. I’m brand new and can already see organization problems and as the site builds, it is going to get out of control fast with tons of top level folders on the main page…it will be too busy to look at and hard for views to deal with the long, long page scrolls. Smugmug is very responsive to customers so I’m sure they are listening…and we need to keep suggesting improvements! Best, Shane

www.shanecanfieldphotography.com (http://www.shanecanfieldphotography.com/)

[Khaos]

keywords will be the way of tomorrow in pretty much everything.

They've been used on the web for sometime now, and they will be used for your file system in whatever, was to be Longhorn, but not now, OS we will get in the future.

A heirarchy is a pain in the ass to go through with thousands of photos looking for a pic I took of Aunt Ethel during Christmas 2003. When I can type in keywords like ethel, christmas, 2003 and get a few hits and find exactly what I want quickly.

Change is good.

[Shane Canfield]

keywords will be the way of tomorrow in pretty much everything.

They've been used on the web for sometime now, and they will be used for your file system in whatever, was to be Longhorn, but not now, OS we will get in the future.

A heirarchy is a pain in the ass to go through with thousands of photos looking for a pic I took of Aunt Ethel during Christmas 2003. When I can type in keywords like ethel, christmas, 2003 and get a few hits and find exactly what I want quickly.

Change is good.
Using a heirarchy does not replace keywords...they don't replace them in any of the photowebs I mention by name, but they use both.

[JamesJWeg]

keywords will be the way of tomorrow in pretty much everything.

They've been used on the web for sometime now, and they will be used for your file system in whatever, was to be Longhorn, but not now, OS we will get in the future.

A heirarchy is a pain in the ass to go through with thousands of photos looking for a pic I took of Aunt Ethel during Christmas 2003. When I can type in keywords like ethel, christmas, 2003 and get a few hits and find exactly what I want quickly.

Change is good.
While keywords are a good tool, they can't replace heiarachy. How am I supposed to send someone a link to oorganized galleries of shots from a race using ketwords?

James.

[Mike Lane]

While keywords are a good tool, they can't replace heiarachy. How am I supposed to send someone a link to oorganized galleries of shots from a race using ketwords?

James.
http://yourname.smugmug.com/keyword/keyword1-keyword2-...-keywordn

I'm not sure what kind of races you do but say it's the Tacoma Sound to Narrows 12k (not the 5k) and you have all the bib numbers. You could send someone to their gallery by giving them a link to yourname.smugmug.com/keyword/tacoma-sound+to+narrows-12k-BIB#. I bet someone could even create a script that would let people enter their bib# and pull the race from a dropdown list. Keywords are much more flexible and powerful than heirarchy.

[JamesJWeg]

http://yourname.smugmug.com/keyword/keyword1-keyword2-...-keywordn

I'm not sure what kind of races you do but say it's the Tacoma Sound to Narrows 12k (not the 5k) and you have all the bib numbers. You could send someone to their gallery by giving them a link to yourname.smugmug.com/keyword/tacoma-sound+to+narrows-12k-BIB#. I bet someone could even create a script that would let people enter their bib# and pull the race from a dropdown list. Keywords are much more flexible and powerful than heirarchy. Here is an example of what I am doing.

http://jamesjweg.smugmug.com/Racing/72351

It would take hours to enter all those kart numbers, but maybe I ought to do it?. An example of why I want another level of catagories is that "BSRRS" is the sanctioning body, next time I shot a BSRRS race I would like to place it in a catagory with just other BSRRS races. To do that now I would need to create a Catagory "BSRRS" and then sub-cat for the event, and then galleries for session etc. If I went that way my root level page would be clutered way beyond what it already is. By adding one more level of sub cat I could do this. I do not see any good way to do this with keywords. Anther problem with keywords is sorting. Why does this happen, these should both be the exact same pics, why are they not in the same order? How do you sort order with keywords?

http://pics.jamesjweg.com/keyword/srrs-workers-051405

http://pics.jamesjweg.com/gallery/669835

another problem, which of those links is easier to tell someone over the phone etc?

James.

[mercphoto]

It would take hours to enter all those kart numbers, but maybe I ought to do it?
Yes. It will go faster than you think. I use File Browser in PSCS to enter all my keywords before I upload to Smugmug. I have a view setup specificially to make this task easier. I bulk apply keywords for event date and track name to all photos for that event. I also apply a keyword to kart type to groups of photos (i.e. juniorkart, shifterkart, tagkart, etc.) Then I individually tag kart numbers.

One thing I need to do next is get an email list of customers, and then after uploading, email those people with a keyword URL to their photos.

[JamesJWeg]

Yes. It will go faster than you think. I use File Browser in PSCS to enter all my keywords before I upload to Smugmug. I have a view setup specificially to make this task easier. I bulk apply keywords for event date and track name to all photos for that event. I also apply a keyword to kart type to groups of photos (i.e. juniorkart, shifterkart, tagkart, etc.) Then I individually tag kart numbers.

One thing I need to do next is get an email list of customers, and then after uploading, email those people with a keyword URL to their photos. Sounds like you have this down to a art. Just wondering, how many frames/day do you shot at a karting event? And how many hours does it take you to have them all online? I have been working on that customer e-mail idea too.

James.

[mercphoto]

Sounds like you have this down to a art. Just wondering, how many frames/day do you shot at a karting event? And how many hours does it take you to have them all online? I have been working on that customer e-mail idea too.

Depends on how large the event is. For a club race with only 4 groups and maybe 24 drivers total, about 350 shots taken, and 250 posted. For a regional race that goes all day then over a thousand.

Looking over your galleries, and please take this as constructive criticism, but you were complaining about having to keyword so many photos per event. You need to thin the herd. You are posting some images that frankly should be tossed. This will make your life much easier and your work appear much better.

For example, about 12 of the 15 photos on this page http://jamesjweg.smugmug.com/gallery/660991/5/28465182 should just be tossed.

[JamesJWeg]

Depends on how large the event is. For a club race with only 4 groups and maybe 24 drivers total, about 350 shots taken, and 250 posted. For a regional race that goes all day then over a thousand.

Looking over your galleries, and please take this as constructive criticism, but you were complaining about having to keyword so many photos per event. You need to thin the herd. You are posting some images that frankly should be tossed. This will make your life much easier and your work appear much better.

For example, about 12 of the 15 photos on this page http://jamesjweg.smugmug.com/gallery/660991/5/28465182 should just be tossed.
I think you are correct, and thanks for the input. I am trying to learn to thin out the herd a little. However that gallery was a bad choice to coment on, those are snapshots of friends and co-workers and by friends, I only shot some of those and that event is not one that I was there to shot. I was there to work in timeing and scoring. Those pics are of the other works, notice they are totally unprotected, due to the fact that I was not shooting to sell, infact I shot about 10% of that gallery.

James.

[Shane Canfield]

Keyword usage is neither quick nor intuitive for users of websites for those shooting lots of events over time. Nor is setting it up as easy as suggested here. For one little example, I shoot for three teams at one particular high school. Each team has many games per season...20 at least. Each game has 50 to 100 photos published. Plus there are numerous seasons. On the websites of many pros who shoot events for a living, websites and photo collections quickly run into many, many thousands of photos.

Plus many photos that are not technically perfect are on line for parents to view and/or buy...parents are not photo editors for SI--so to suggest that photos need to be deleted because they don't meet a certain standard is obnoxious and lacks understanding of how many pros (and others, pro bono shooters for example) make a living shooting events.



So back to the single HS example, viewers need to be able to look up High School X, then Year Y, then drilling down, to Sport A, then to season (some sports have multiple seasons) B, then JV or Varsity, then the specific game so-and-so, then some tournaments go even deeper, and the keywords are constantly repeated. This is typical and I shoot many such teams and events. So keyword searches are not an option...what is suggested here is not realistic. It may be for people that don't shoot much or have no need to store work over time. It is simply not possible to email every one who looks at sight, in advance, a list of keywords or expect customers to figure it out...that is a sure way to lose lots of clients fast--people don't want to have to labor on a website to find what they want...easy clicks and they will enjoy the experience. Customers look at the list of keywords on the bottom of a page and wonder what kind of mess is that...and with lots over events, it would quickly be many words in a long string, and they would not bother with the site...too much work to navigate.



I think SmugMug should have both. Then people like those here that think keywords are better can use those...people with other expanded needs can have the normal tree setup. But to suggest that keywords are easier or faster seems to ignore pro shooters and those that shoot many events all the time...and SmugMug is selling its services to pros too. And those that shoot a lot and wants to have a user friendly site for many viewers (including those not on distribution lists for emails on keywords) uses hierarchies. No one goes to Amazon and only searches on keywords...you can search on text, but the entire site is set up as a hierarchy. Any website of consequence (newspapers, corps sites, stores, pro photograhpers who custom set up a website, stock photographers) is set up as a hierarchy…with the ability for people to also search on text, and this text seaching is not limited to key words that folks going to the site have to know in advance, but has its own logic and does not rely on exact keywords or a specific syntax.



I like SmugMug a lot, it has lots of great features…but this area could be more robust.

[geraldfinnegan]

fourseasons, I agree with you...[/url]
I go to View>Page Source on my Homepage, in whatever browser I'm using, scroll down to all the html code for the various key words in the Keywords Section of my Homepage, pick important keywords I want to use as sub-categories, then copy the html entry (all of it) for the particular keyword and paste it as a link in my header using co-branding. I have about 6 of these under the Title of my Smugmug site's Homepage. They can't see thumbnails of these sub-categories, but they can quickly click on theme-titles of various photo-groupings of my choice and see those photos. And the thubnails of the galleries themselves are still available further down the page. It's not a perfect alternative but is another way of going if you're frustrated with the usual way of configuring groups of photos. Take a look if you like.
gerald finnegan

[url]www.finnegan.smugmug.com (http://www.shanecanfieldphotography.com/)

[mercphoto]

Plus many photos that are not technically perfect are on line for parents to view and/or buy...parents are not photo editors for SI--so to suggest that photos need to be deleted because they don't meet a certain standard is obnoxious and lacks understanding of how many pros (and others, pro bono shooters for example) make a living shooting events.
I believe the "obnoxious" statement was directed at me. If you want to say I don't understand how you make a living, that is fine. To say I'm obnoxious because I suggested he post only good photos I'm not fine with. I clearly stated that my advice was to be taken as constructive criticism. To call that obnoxious of me is not warranted.

So back to the single HS example, viewers need to be able to look up High School X, then Year Y, then drilling down, to Sport A, then to season (some sports have multiple seasons) B, then JV or Varsity, then the specific game so-and-so, then some tournaments go even deeper, and the keywords are constantly repeated. This is typical and I shoot many such teams and events. So keyword searches are not an option...
I tell my racers to start at my keyword page and select their number. Then "combine with" an event date, or track, then with a car/bike type. Etc. This is fundamentally the same as your hierarchy. They are drilling down a system, starting at a large number of images and thinning the herd with each mouse click.

In the keyword example, they would click on the keyword for High School X, then combine with the year Y, then combine with Sport A, then combine with Varisity or Reserves, then combine with a game date, then combine with a specific game.

The only difference between your hierarchy and the keyword system is that you enforce a particular order in which the tree is traversed, whereas with keywords the tree can be traversed in any order. With hard categories you force the user to start with high school name, then choose a year, then choose a sport, etc. With keywords it can be done in any order.

And if you claim that forcing the order of the search is of benefit to 90% of the users out there, to keep them from being confused or confronted with too many choices, I would actually agree with you.

My only complaint about this keyword system is that the "combine with" list is not all-inclusive, and that is a big problem. Keywords as it exists today would not work for you because of this, and it barely works for me. If it matters any, with a keyword system you can do some things that you cannot do with a static hierarchy of albums. For example, a racer can pull up all his images from every race in one search. Or, he can find all his photos that his buddy also happens to be in.

[Mike Lane]

So back to the single HS example, viewers need to be able to look up High School X, then Year Y, then drilling down, to Sport A, then to season (some sports have multiple seasons) B, then JV or Varsity, then the specific game so-and-so, then some tournaments go even deeper, and the keywords are constantly repeated. This is typical and I shoot many such teams and events. So keyword searches are not an option...
I very much disagree. In fact, I think that keywords would be a much more powerful and much easier way to handle this situation. The only assumption is that a person would have to know a) how to type a keyword into a search and b) what they are looking for (i.e. what school, season, sport, JV or Varsity, and so on). So if Joe Schmoe who wore jersey number 22 was the center on Springfield High JV b-ball team at the Confusion Classic tourney on 1 April 2005 at Mt. Confusion High you could either make him drill down until he had carpel tunnel (and even then he'd have to scan the results for what he was looking for probably) or you could let him enter the appropriate search terms in a keyword search box. He could automatically get all pictures of his team that included his jersey # at the specific tourney on the specific date. In fact, if he wanted to get those pictures filtered for only the pictures that included him and his best friend John Daniels (jersey #42) then he could do that with the greatest of ease.

Keywords offer the customer unlimited flexibility and precise matches that a heirarchial system simply cannot match. The downside is that you have to be diligent about entering keywords either in photoshop (or whatever) or in SM after you upload them. Also SM limits the amount of additive keywords (for a lack of a better term) on the keyword results page (something that I think they should change ASAP) so you may have to implement a keyword search on your own (which isn't difficult to do).

[mercphoto]

Also SM limits the amount of additive keywords (for a lack of a better term) on the keyword results page (something that I think they should change ASAP)
I agree. I'm already having issues with that. I can find numerous examples where I can click on a race vehicle number, and the "combine with" list does not list all the event date keywords that I know that kart number resides in.

so you may have to implement a keyword search on your own (which isn't difficult to do).
How? How? How? Thanks.

[Shane Canfield]

Well obviously Mike and Bill are keyword fans and while I think you are very wrong, have shown why, and think the counter arguements are weak at best and ignore how the world actually uses websites, how you set up your websites is not something that concerns me. In looking at some of the posts from these two, you guys ought to be on Sumgmug's payroll.

But in the end, it is the SmugMug executives that I want to see these comments. To SmugMug, I would ask that you simply build on the Catigories and Sub-Catigories and allow for further levels of depth. Obviously many others agree with the need to have levels for organizing. For keywords fans, they have what they desire so no need to deal with that end of things. However, this forum is not going all that useful when all the dialogue is cheerleading. In my business, we welcome the hard issues that clients bring to us, they are the real challenge...and listening to them determines our long-term success.

Running a small company myself, I am truly impressed with the responsive nature of SumgMug and look forward to the continuing evolution of this product. Best, Shane



I agree. I'm already having issues with that. I can find numerous examples where I can click on a race vehicle number, and the "combine with" list does not list all the event date keywords that I know that kart number resides in.


How? How? How? Thanks.

[Mike Lane]

I agree. I'm already having issues with that. I can find numerous examples where I can click on a race vehicle number, and the "combine with" list does not list all the event date keywords that I know that kart number resides in.


How? How? How? Thanks.
<form name="keywordBox" class="search2" style="right-margin:0px" method="get" action="/keyword/jump.mg">

<input type="text" name="Keyword" size="18" class="SchBox" value=" search my keywords" onClick="if(document.keywordBox.Keyword.value == ' search my keywords') { document.keywordBox.Keyword.value = ' ' }" />
<input type="image" src="http://img131.echo.cx/img131/5954/magglass8qx.png" title="Search my keywords" align="absmiddle" width="19" height="21" hspace="0" vspace="0" border="0" onclick="if(document.keywordBox.Keyword.value == ' search my keywords') { document.keywordBox.Keyword.value = ' ' }" />

</form>


Okay, about this search... It uses a class (search2) you can just delete that if you don't want to use it (on the other hand I'll show you what I used if you want, just let me know). Also I (with a little help from a view source on someone else's page) gave the search box and search button kind of fancy, you may or may not want to change that too. I just want you to know what to expect from this code. You may want to wrap all of this in a table, or if you're extra fancy a layer div may be a better option (it'll be the more flexible-albeit more difficult to implement-option anyhow).

[Mike Lane]

Well obviously Mike and Bill are keyword fans and while I think you are very wrong, have shown why, and think the counter arguements are weak at best and ignore how the world actually uses websites, how you set up your websites is not something that concerns me. In looking at some of the posts from these two, you guys ought to be on Sumgmug's payroll.
You're not a very nice guy huh? Perhaps you simply refuse to understand and accept something new. How, in your desired system, can you get it so someone can filter down to particular images that pertain to them and only to them? If customers were able to easily find exactly what they wanted without wading through tons of galleries to do so (saving them time ... pageloads take time ... and energy ... clicking and scrolling is aparently something people can't stand to do) would they be a) more likely to buy something or b) less likely? If, as in my previous example, I could type basketball, 22, springfield, confusion, 2005, April 1 and click go and immediately be brought to a page that was only the pictures that I was interested in purchasing why would that be worse than being forced to see an absurd number of galleries of other stuff that doesn't matter to me?

As for my part, I am no more a cheerleader for SM than I am for del.icio.us (which uses the exact same flat keyword system), dozens of other websites, or for that matter relational databases. This is nothing all that new or exciting. What is exciting is how much time and energy it saves.

But then again, they're your customers and if you want them to waste their time just to have to wade through a bunch of pictures that they don't want, well best of luck to you.

But in the end, it is the SmugMug executives that I want to see these comments. To SmugMug, I would ask that you simply build on the Catigories and Sub-Catigories and allow for further levels of depth. Obviously many others agree with the need to have levels for organizing. For keywords fans, they have what they desire so no need to deal with that end of things. However, this forum is not going all that useful when all the dialogue is cheerleading. In my business, we welcome the hard issues that clients bring to us, they are the real challenge...and listening to them determines our long-term success.
All you need is to do a search to see what the SM guys think. They made their opinions abundantly clear in this thread: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=13810. I suggest you read the whole thing.

And may I suggest you learn to embrace new ideas. New ways of doing things aren't always bad or scary.

[Shane Canfield]

With all due respect, it is a amazingly thick that you read a thread, from an a entirely different set of customers, complaining about the exact same problem. and what you see that they are all wrong. But why you can't see the obvious is better left for a psychologist...as for me, I embrace intelligent change that makes it easier for clients, not forcing my odd version of reality on them and assuming that they are too stupid to understand my peculiar version of what is best for them. But certainly this thread is at an end…I’d say use your keywords and be happy.

[mercphoto]

Well obviously Mike and Bill are keyword fans and while I think you are very wrong, have shown why, and think the counter arguements are weak at best and ignore how the world actually uses websites, how you set up your websites is not something that concerns me. In looking at some of the posts from these two, you guys ought to be on Sumgmug's payroll.
You can stop the character attacks on me right now.

[JamesJWeg]

You can stop the character attacks on me right now.
I didn't read that as a character attack. :scratch

James.

[Mike Lane]

With all due respect, it is a amazingly thick that you read a thread, from an a entirely different set of customers, complaining about the exact same problem and what you see that they are all wrong. But why you can't see the obvious is better left for a psychologist...as for me, I embrace intelligent change that makes it easier for clients, not forcing my odd version of reality on them and assuming that they are too stupid to understand my peculiar version of what is best for them. But certainly this thread is at an end…I’d say use your keywords and be happy.
Okay, so I'm thick (amazingly so despite the fact that you clearly didn't read the entire forum to see what you wanted - namely the mod's view on keywords), I'm oblivious to obvious intelligence (so I guess I'm stupid), I need to work out my problems with a psychologist (thanks for the recommendation there doc).

Well I think I have my first candidate for an ignore here...

Jesus, what a moron.

[duckznutz]

It can't have escaped everyones notice that this forum (and most others), is structured in a logical tree format. Thats by far the best way for gentle aimless browsing through the posts. People are not always looking for something precise and specific and might just want to click through the tree to see whats going on. Why can't we have hierarchy AND keywords? Are they mutually exclusive?

[bkriete]

DING! I agree completely. Keywords are great if you know what you're looking for, not so hot if you're just browsing.

It can't have escaped everyones notice that this forum (and most others), is structured in a logical tree format. Thats by far the best way for gentle aimless browsing through the posts. People are not always looking for something precise and specific and might just want to click through the tree to see whats going on. Why can't we have hierarchy AND keywords? Are they mutually exclusive?

[MrBook2]

Why can't we have hierarchy AND keywords? Are they mutually exclusive?


While this thread has come dangerously close to getting out of control, I have to say that this sums up my feelings. A tree structure has many valid uses, as do keywords. Having one shouldn't mean you can't have the other.

The real issue may be how the smugmug server is set up. It may be intractable to add in a generic n-level deep tree structure without a complete re-write of much of the software that powers smugmug. This might be too much to ask of the smugmug team, but if it is possible, I would sure love to have a tree structure. Keywords are nice, but all of my pictures on my local drive are in a tree structure, and I back up every last one of them at smugmug. It would be easier if I could use a tree.

--Aaron

[timcsr]

Wow. I'm just a naive amateur photographer. You guys sure do get worked up. I do take a lot of pictures, have done for years. And I like many of the pictures I take. I also like Smugmug. But I would like it a lot more if it had a hierarchical files system. Seems like it could do both hierarchy and keywords, so why the argument?

I must admit that I'm intimidated by the idea of inputting keywords into ALL my photos. That seems like a very tedious job. You guys seem to have that figured out. There was a post earlier that made some suggestions, but it was too advanced for me to follow. Maybe someone could make some suggestions for a keyword novice?

By the way, guys: chill out. We're just talking here, right?