After it shows 'yes' incorrectly for the the Hello World/Smuggers setting, save it and go back to the gallery. Then, go back to your customize page again. Does it still say yes? or is it set correctly now?
Nope, it's correcly set. That's odd & very confusing but thanks!
Nope, it's correcly set. That's odd & very confusing but thanks!
I think it's a bug on our side, not *showing* the correct settings at the time of the quicksetting selection, but the correct setting is saved. Sorry about that
I just joined SmugMug, and aside from the forced branding in the title bar and (IMHO) high print markups, I'm very impressed. But I'm afraid the lack of sub-galleries really is a deal-breaker for me, too. But not for the reason of nesting, but for security.
The Categories implementation is less than an ideal interface for my workflow, but I could certainly live with it if only I had the same kind of control over Categories that I do over Galleries. Specifically I want password protection on the Category AS A WHOLE, and the ability to adjust print policies in a group for a Category.
The structure I'd like to implement is something like this:
Public Gallery A
Public Gallery B
Public Gallery C
Family
->Private Gallery A
->Private Gallery B
->Private Gallery C
Clients
->Private Gallery D
->Private Gallery E
->Private Gallery F
I want the ability to make public galleries accessible to all, with no access to full size images or printing.
I want the "Family" gallery to be locked down with a password. Enter the password for the Family gallery and you have access to all sub-galleries inside with no password needed. These galleries all need to have original images and printing available, and it would be ideal if the sub-galleries would inherit their settings from the Family gallery, so I didn't have to go stamp it with settings presets.
Finally, the "Clients" gallery itself needs to be open to the public, but the sub-galleries need to be (optionally) individually password protected; a different password for each. Each sub-gallery needs individual control over the ability to download original images, the ability to print, and the prices of prints.
I can't see any way to implement this kind of structure in SmugMug. I can organize three levels deep with categories, but they are just dumb folders, with no individual settings of their own. I see JavaScript Kung Fu that might get me partway there, but no official support, and certainly no easy-to-use solution. (Especially not one that will work directly with Lightroom.)
Am I missing something?
My dilemma is this. I need to get a site running soon, but I need the ability to organize and protect my photos in this manner. SmugMug is excellent in every regard, and I'm extremely happy with it so far, except for this one big limitation.
On the other hand I also checked out Zenfolio, and while I dislike many of the limitations of their system (limited gallery layouts and customization capabilities, few software tools to drive the site, and a poor slideshow feature come to mind), they have a fully heirarchical gallery system that is very easy to use and administer. Simply put, their system saves me time and lets me protect my images fully. It doesn't hurt that they're a lot cheaper (Pro vs Pro accounts and for prints) and are much nicer about co-branding, either.
So, while SmugMug seemed like a slam dunk when I signed up for a trial, these organizational limitations make the system less useful to me. And it seems like it's not a lack of a feature, but a conscious design decision. I want to go with SmugMug, because I like the system as a whole much better. But this one feature is an absolute killer for me. And I can't exactly come back to SmugMug in nine months if this feature is added. Not with multiple GB online.
1) Create three categories: Public Galleries, Family, Client Galleries
2) Give the same password to each of the galleries within "Family". If multiple galleries have the same password, then smugmug will only ask for the password once.
3) Create sub-categories within "Client Galleries", one for each client
4) Put galleries within these client sub-categories, with passwords as appropriate.
1) Create three categories: Public Galleries, Family, Client Galleries
2) Give the same password to each of the galleries within "Family". If multiple galleries have the same password, then smugmug will only ask for the password once.
3) Create sub-categories within "Client Galleries", one for each client
4) Put galleries within these client sub-categories, with passwords as appropriate.
But the world still has access to see the contents of the "Family" category, right?
But the world still has access to see the contents of the "Family" category, right?
Maybe something like this?
Move your galleries/categories box back into your control panel by clicking
hide. Now no one will be able to see anything you don't provide a direct link to.
Create an html landing page for the Public and Client Category, something like this. Name your family category something like myfamily or familypics so no one can guess it. Then only supply the direct link to your family.
http://nickname.smugmug.com/myfamily
Move your galleries/categories box back into your control panel by clicking
hide. Now no one will be able to see anything you don't provide a direct link to.
Create an html landing page for the Public and Client Category, something like this. Name your family category something like myfamily or familypics so no one can guess it. Then only supply the direct link to your family.
http://nickname.smugmug.com/myfamily
Hm, so by that method the files are accessible to the whole Internet, but only if someone were able to guess the exact URL of an image or gallery, or if the URL were spread by someone with access to the gallery, right?
Hm... I'm not a fan of security by obscurity, and I'd prefer to avoid writing HTML when possible (I do enough of that at my day job!) but that would get me pretty close to what I want.
Thanks for the suggestions, guys. I appreciate the help!
. . . only if someone were able to guess the exact URL of an image or gallery, or if the URL were spread by someone with access to the gallery, right?
I wish this was true.
However, it is worth mentioning at this point that no matter what customization tricks you do to 'hide' stuff on Smugmug, by sticking the word 'iphone' at the end
http://nickname.smugmug.com/iphone
then ALL your public galleries are visible to the world. No URL-guessing required.
It would be nice of course if there were the option to disable the iphone pages 'feature' but until then you are going to have to individually 'password' and/or 'unlist' all the galleries you want complete control of.
However, it is worth mentioning at this point that no matter what customization tricks you do to 'hide' stuff on Smugmug, by sticking the word 'iphone' at the end
http://nickname.smugmug.com/iphone
then ALL your public galleries are visible to the world. No URL-guessing required.
It would be nice of course if there were the option to disable the iphone pages 'feature' but until then you are going to have to individually 'password' and/or 'unlist' all the galleries you want complete control of.
:eek1
Wow, thanks for the heads up, Stuart! That kills that route for me, at least until they patch this hole.
Just thought I'd post a comment in the opposite direction.
I would love to see something offerred that is more simple and elegant, as opposed to more complex. I'm not a wedding or stock photog, more fine art and editorial, so I need a simple site for portfolio presentation. Those created by Neon Sky are the best, most elegant on the web IMHO ... and the awards and leading photogs using these templates would back this up.
While this isn't smugmug's marketplace now ... i think it is positioned well to offer a higher quality service in the future. Granted, it would be a slim market and perhaps not worth the investment but ... it could garner some respect.
The biggest "dealbreaker" though is smugmug's compulsory branding ... in the footer, in the search engines, etc. Okay for sharing, even some pros perhaps, but otherwise pretty tacky marketing that looks amateurish elsewhere. That would be the core of the issue ... sites that look "amateurish," mine included. And, in the same vein, sites that look all the same ... which is the point of smugmug's business model (all the same, a quote from the CEO). True, a lot of Neon Sky sites look similar but they are very simple and elegant with the photos being the point, not buttons and features. Feature bloat is already here at smugmug I'm afraid.
I'm writing this to explain why I'll be leaving as soon as I can afford it, not as a rant or demand, but to provide some constructive feedback. I have always thought both smugmug and dgrin could be much more than they are with a little more artisitic vision paired with the obvious technical brilliance already in place, and to be frank, a little less arrogance and exploitation of the volunteer army on dgrin ... But perhaps I'm just the odd duck here ....
I understand no single interface or site can be all things for all people but the game could be raised to create something truly memorable, perhaps even as a spinoff ... and fill a quality niche generally lacking on the web. While it may not seem so, this is a positive affirmation of both dgrin and smugmug and the overwhelming vast majority of people involved here, or at least what this could become.
...hmmm, if you can conceive it, you can acheive it. Can you conceive it?
Hm, so by that method the files are accessible to the whole Internet, but only if someone were able to guess the exact URL of an image or gallery, or if the URL were spread by someone with access to the gallery, right?
If the galleries are password protected, then the gallery names (and featured pictures) would be accessible to someone who guessed the category name. But the actual photos would not be accessible.
It's certainly behavior counter to what I'd expect. Hidden is not hidden for the iPhone interface, if I'm understanding correctly.
Seastack, I agree with your comments on the branding. I don't mind a brief, subtle note in an out-of-the-way part of the site, but seeing "portions copyright SmugMug" on all my pages really gets under my skin. True, the code is SmugMug's. True, it's copyrighted. But to anyone seeing a copyright message on a gallery page, the immediate logical leap is that at least some of the content is owned by SmugMug.
Anyway, I'm digressing from my original request, so I'll zip it now.
and to be frank, a little less arrogance and exploitation of the volunteer army on dgrin ... But perhaps I'm just the odd duck here ....
Dgrin was made by volunteers. When I started, I was a volunteer here. At Baldy's invitation. We've always stated that Dgrin is a community place. In fact, far and away the majority of the decisions made are made by volunteers who admin and mod this forum.
I'm sorry that you don't know this.
... feel free to delete of course ;-)
We don't delete posts, unless they are Spam, or against Dgrin rules. We value and want all opinions and feedback.
Pilotdave, we don't have a "copy photo to another gallery" tool, but it's not much more trouble to "make a second copy" and then "move to..." whatever gallery you want. Second copies get made quite fast.
And why don't we have copy to gallery! This is one of the biggest frustrations for me along with the lack of subgalleries. Yes, we have make second copy, but only one image at a time. Why can't we do this in bulk then move photos to another gallery.
My Pictures : My Gear
I Reject Your Reality And Substitute My Own - Adam Savage
And why don't we have copy to gallery! This is one of the biggest frustrations for me along with the lack of subgalleries. Yes, we have make second copy, but only one image at a time. Why can't we do this in bulk then move photos to another gallery.
We do allow unlimited storage of photos on SmugMug. Thanks for your request!
I've got to agree with Putty on this one. Having one additional level in galleries would make my life significantly easier.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Category (Sports)\Sub-Category(type of sport)\Gallery(Event or Team)\Sub-Gallery(Race Number or Team or Participant)<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Not having this ability when you only have a few events on your site is not a problem, but as the numbers increase, you end up with a very difficult to navigate site. I've only just begun to start uploading content to my site, and I can see it turning into a problem once I have 400-500 events up there. It's also a problem when you have thousands of shots for a single event. My customers do not want to have to click through 500 photos to get to find the three photos of their kid.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> I understand the balancing that needs to be done between number or clicks and customer dissatisfaction with the navigation experience, but when customers need to scroll though a few hundred galleries to find the one that contains their event or the three shots of their kid, I'd say the balance equation is not quite right.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> I know you are going to come back and say "use keywords". Keywords are fine for some things, but I have customers that like to just click through to what they want. I shoot for a lot of non-English speakers, and they have a very difficult time using search. They are successful when clicking through though. (It's the same thing as your general rule of "Let the customer choose the crop". I followed that advice with the first few event galleries I put up and got no sales. When I spoke with these non-English speakers to find out why, they uniformly said they did not like the framing of the image. They did not understand that they could choose the composition of the shot themselves. As a result, I will be cropping everything before uploading from now on.) My point here is that while I understand the need to hit the majority of users with your feature choices, these corner cases are important to some of your Pro customers like me, and the lack of configurability presents significant customer satisfaction issues not just for your Pro customers, but also to our customers.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> As to CJYPHOTO's comment Andy, I've been aggravated that "copy to gallery" is not an available feature too. It has nothing to do with "unlimited storage of photos on SmugMug" but rather work flow. To illustrate the issue, say that you want to copy 200 shots into a different gallery, at present you have two choices - you can manually make a second copy of each photo an then move them to the second gallery, or you can upload them all a second time into the second gallery. Neither of these options are very efficient. I've run into this twice in the last month. Having the ability to select multiple photos and chose "copy to gallery" would solve the issue.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> $0.02<o:p></o:p>
I think maybe the 'limitations' of the hierarchy system balance the 'unlimited' uploads feature qute well. Smugmug needs to make money. If you have 500 events or more then maybe they are expecting you to consider opening more accounts? I once considered the idea of opening a fresh 'basic' Smugmug account for EVERY client, and adding that to their invoice. Its not a lot of money. You can still keep your professional account and then have sub-accounts for different seasons or whatever. Maybe Smugmug should put some thought into account 'suites' whereby a master account could control sub accounts. That lets the current structure continue with added 'depth' and generates income too.
As to CJYPHOTO's comment Andy, I've been aggravated that "copy to gallery" is not an available feature too. It has nothing to do with "unlimited storage of photos on SmugMug"
Hi, put yourself in our shoes Storage does cost something, yes? We'd rather have smart galleries, virtual galleries, etc. One photo in multiple places, eh?
It's ironic that SM doesn't allow deeper categories because it adds too many click, while even simple operations require several unnecessary clicks.
Yes indeed, there are many things that absolutely suck - and I can tell you this, Baldy (co-founder) has been workin his butt off for week in cleaning some of these up. And we hope to have some sort of new tools setup in place soon, too. It's a top priority for {JT} but his wife just today delivered their 2nd child so he's a bit busy
It's ironic to me, that you'd want us to click-click-click and make things worse
We hope to have smart galleries that will solve this n-levels thing for any and all.
Erick, keep the feedback coming you know we love it.
It's ironic to me, that you'd want us to click-click-click and make things worse
I don't. I'm just pointing out the irony because I see it in other places. And deeper levels is something we could choose to use or not, unlike the interface. The external tools are fine, until you work on a different computer. And I only heard about smugbrowser months after I joined.
I don't. I'm just pointing out the irony because I see it in other places. And deeper levels is something we could choose to use or not, unlike the interface. The external tools are fine, until you work on a different computer. And I only heard about smugbrowser months after I joined.
My point is, we want to do it right - with Smart/Virtual galleries - not by allowing N-levels of hierarchy... at least that's how I understand it
My point is, we want to do it right - with Smart/Virtual galleries - not by allowing N-levels of hierarchy... at least that's how I understand it
Andy, virtual galleries is really a pretty different thing from more levels of hierarchy. I've never even considered the two to be solutions to the same problem. I would use virtual galleries today to solve the problem of multiple views of the same images, not the problem of more levels of hierarchy.
As long as I've been frequenting this place (perhaps a similar amount of time as you), we've seen a steady stream of requests for at least one more level of hierarchy. The issue comes up fairly regularly and each time users are pretty surprised that Smugmug doesn't offer more.
I get it that some users would shoot themselves in the foot with too many levels of hierarchy. I've seen users use the max levels you have today when they only have a total of 8 galleries. It's absolutely silly.
But, just because some would misue the extra levels does not mean that there are not legitimate reasons for more levels. With so many competing services offering users what they are asking for, I think your resistance is starting to get old and stale. Yes, you should make it really easy for users to set things up. Yes, you should make it really easy for users to use the fewest number of levels of hierarchy needed. AND, yes when a user really wants more levels, you should offer it.
In the end, the customer's perception of what they think they need is their reality and if you continue to refuse to give it to them, they will go elsewhere. You can decide to not serve those customers because you think it will be misused too much by others and overall harm the Smugmug business or because you just never think it's important enough to do. If that's the case, then just tell them that you don't offer it and if they can't find a good solution using your other tools, then they should probably find a competing service. This "in between answer" that tries to tell a user they couldn't possibly need an extra level of hierarchy just gets old and makes people feel like you are telling them that you know better than they how to organize their own site.
I think you guys also have to remember that your customers are starting to grow up now with lots more galleries, lots more sub-categories and lots more photos. I've got 15,000 photos in 400+ galleries in my account that I use for school and sports events. I have categories that have so many sub-categories on them that they scroll on some screens. I'm not that far away from thinking that it's a better navigation model to use one more level of hierarchy than you offer today and I'm fully aware of the trade-offs involved in extra clicks and all the other options available to solve the problem.
Andy, virtual galleries is really a pretty different thing from more levels of hierarchy.
Maybe. But maybe they are related, too - I don't know exactly how they'll play out
In the end, the customer's perception of what they think they need is their reality and if you continue to refuse to give it to them, they will go elsewhere. You can decide to not serve those customers because you think it will be misused too much by others and overall harm the Smugmug business or because you just never think it's important enough to do. If that's the case, then just tell them that you don't offer it and if they can't find a good solution using your other tools, then they should probably find a competing service. This "in between answer" that tries to tell a user they couldn't possibly need an extra level of hierarchy just gets old and makes people feel like you are telling them that you know better than they how to organize their own site.
I'm sorry you feel it's an inbetween answer We listen to many different customers. There have been some over 4 years here on Dgrin who've asked for it. And some who've written our help desk. But in our judgement, up to this point, not a groundswell, not enough to drop everything and change the way it is right now. We're not going to stop soliciting feedback - it's too important, too much like gold to us. The other side of this coin, is, that folks are free to ask all they want anything they want - and we listen - we may or may not implement everything that is asked for. If we do, great - if we don't, and someone else does, then they'll move on, if it's important enough to them. But I never, ever want anyone to feel like they're input isn't welcome.
If we have a solid, definitive "no" - on an issue, we give it.
Hi, put yourself in our shoes Storage does cost something, yes? We'd rather have smart galleries, virtual galleries, etc. One photo in multiple places, eh?
Why yes I'd also like smart, virtual, or collection galleries also. Were are they? Also, didn't you just encourage me and others to simply upload two, three or more versions of the same image since virtual galleries are still not available? Does this not take up even more storage?
People have been asking for sub galleries and the ability to copy images to another gallery for a long time now and what do we get? SmugIslands. Kind of the direct print feature of Canon DSLR's.
Once again I'd love to have virtual galleries if they are similar to collections in Zenfolio. I'd also love just one sub-gallery for when it is needed.
My Pictures : My Gear
I Reject Your Reality And Substitute My Own - Adam Savage
SmugIslands. Kind of the direct print feature of Canon DSLR's.
I'll comment on the galleries issue in a sec, but first, this is totally unfair. SmugIslands came about after lots of requests from users and addresses the major security and privacy concerns of many many users here. I don't bother with SmugIslands, but I remember how happy many many smugmug users were when it came about.
On the other issue, Andy said there hasn't been a groundswell, and I think that is because every time some new user comes in, they ask for it and get shot down. Those of us that have been around for a loooong time (I don't post much, but I read these forums every day) are probably just too jaded about it to even bother asking, which hurts the establishment of a groundswell.
Frankly, this issue really bothers me. I begin to wonder if the "we know what you want to do better than you do" mindset is impossible to over come. I wonder if it has to do with management's relationship with Apple/NeXT/Cuppertino. This is a mindset that I see with Apple and it is a total turnoff (and part of the reason I refuse to use their products). Both Apple and SmugMug seem to reject features requested by some users on the grounds that "most people don't want them", "most people don't care", or (here is the most common one) "most people would be confused by having this feature". This is a bogus line of thinking, especially when no one is asking for the entire user interface to be changed, just an extra feature that no one would even be forced to use. Hell, as it stands, I don't even use subcategories, so I don't need another level, but I can see why many people do need it.
Comments
Nope, it's correcly set. That's odd & very confusing but thanks!
www.ivarborst.nl & smugmug
the levels looks real sano to me.
The Categories implementation is less than an ideal interface for my workflow, but I could certainly live with it if only I had the same kind of control over Categories that I do over Galleries. Specifically I want password protection on the Category AS A WHOLE, and the ability to adjust print policies in a group for a Category.
The structure I'd like to implement is something like this:
Public Gallery A
Public Gallery B
Public Gallery C
Family
->Private Gallery A
->Private Gallery B
->Private Gallery C
Clients
->Private Gallery D
->Private Gallery E
->Private Gallery F
I want the ability to make public galleries accessible to all, with no access to full size images or printing.
I want the "Family" gallery to be locked down with a password. Enter the password for the Family gallery and you have access to all sub-galleries inside with no password needed. These galleries all need to have original images and printing available, and it would be ideal if the sub-galleries would inherit their settings from the Family gallery, so I didn't have to go stamp it with settings presets.
Finally, the "Clients" gallery itself needs to be open to the public, but the sub-galleries need to be (optionally) individually password protected; a different password for each. Each sub-gallery needs individual control over the ability to download original images, the ability to print, and the prices of prints.
I can't see any way to implement this kind of structure in SmugMug. I can organize three levels deep with categories, but they are just dumb folders, with no individual settings of their own. I see JavaScript Kung Fu that might get me partway there, but no official support, and certainly no easy-to-use solution. (Especially not one that will work directly with Lightroom.)
Am I missing something?
My dilemma is this. I need to get a site running soon, but I need the ability to organize and protect my photos in this manner. SmugMug is excellent in every regard, and I'm extremely happy with it so far, except for this one big limitation.
On the other hand I also checked out Zenfolio, and while I dislike many of the limitations of their system (limited gallery layouts and customization capabilities, few software tools to drive the site, and a poor slideshow feature come to mind), they have a fully heirarchical gallery system that is very easy to use and administer. Simply put, their system saves me time and lets me protect my images fully. It doesn't hurt that they're a lot cheaper (Pro vs Pro accounts and for prints) and are much nicer about co-branding, either.
So, while SmugMug seemed like a slam dunk when I signed up for a trial, these organizational limitations make the system less useful to me. And it seems like it's not a lack of a feature, but a conscious design decision. I want to go with SmugMug, because I like the system as a whole much better. But this one feature is an absolute killer for me. And I can't exactly come back to SmugMug in nine months if this feature is added. Not with multiple GB online.
Is there hope over the next hill?
You can implement your structure as follows:
1) Create three categories: Public Galleries, Family, Client Galleries
2) Give the same password to each of the galleries within "Family". If multiple galleries have the same password, then smugmug will only ask for the password once.
3) Create sub-categories within "Client Galleries", one for each client
4) Put galleries within these client sub-categories, with passwords as appropriate.
But the world still has access to see the contents of the "Family" category, right?
Move your galleries/categories box back into your control panel by clicking
hide. Now no one will be able to see anything you don't provide a direct link to.
Create an html landing page for the Public and Client Category, something like this. Name your family category something like myfamily or familypics so no one can guess it. Then only supply the direct link to your family.
http://nickname.smugmug.com/myfamily
My Website index | My Blog
Hm, so by that method the files are accessible to the whole Internet, but only if someone were able to guess the exact URL of an image or gallery, or if the URL were spread by someone with access to the gallery, right?
Hm... I'm not a fan of security by obscurity, and I'd prefer to avoid writing HTML when possible (I do enough of that at my day job!) but that would get me pretty close to what I want.
Thanks for the suggestions, guys. I appreciate the help!
I wish this was true.
However, it is worth mentioning at this point that no matter what customization tricks you do to 'hide' stuff on Smugmug, by sticking the word 'iphone' at the end
http://nickname.smugmug.com/iphone
then ALL your public galleries are visible to the world. No URL-guessing required.
It would be nice of course if there were the option to disable the iphone pages 'feature' but until then you are going to have to individually 'password' and/or 'unlist' all the galleries you want complete control of.
:eek1
Wow, thanks for the heads up, Stuart! That kills that route for me, at least until they patch this hole.
Your comments welcome in this thread if you like: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=88952&highlight=iphone
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
I would love to see something offerred that is more simple and elegant, as opposed to more complex. I'm not a wedding or stock photog, more fine art and editorial, so I need a simple site for portfolio presentation. Those created by Neon Sky are the best, most elegant on the web IMHO ... and the awards and leading photogs using these templates would back this up.
While this isn't smugmug's marketplace now ... i think it is positioned well to offer a higher quality service in the future. Granted, it would be a slim market and perhaps not worth the investment but ... it could garner some respect.
The biggest "dealbreaker" though is smugmug's compulsory branding ... in the footer, in the search engines, etc. Okay for sharing, even some pros perhaps, but otherwise pretty tacky marketing that looks amateurish elsewhere. That would be the core of the issue ... sites that look "amateurish," mine included. And, in the same vein, sites that look all the same ... which is the point of smugmug's business model (all the same, a quote from the CEO). True, a lot of Neon Sky sites look similar but they are very simple and elegant with the photos being the point, not buttons and features. Feature bloat is already here at smugmug I'm afraid.
I'm writing this to explain why I'll be leaving as soon as I can afford it, not as a rant or demand, but to provide some constructive feedback. I have always thought both smugmug and dgrin could be much more than they are with a little more artisitic vision paired with the obvious technical brilliance already in place, and to be frank, a little less arrogance and exploitation of the volunteer army on dgrin ... But perhaps I'm just the odd duck here ....
I understand no single interface or site can be all things for all people but the game could be raised to create something truly memorable, perhaps even as a spinoff ... and fill a quality niche generally lacking on the web. While it may not seem so, this is a positive affirmation of both dgrin and smugmug and the overwhelming vast majority of people involved here, or at least what this could become.
...hmmm, if you can conceive it, you can acheive it. Can you conceive it?
... feel free to delete of course ;-)
If the galleries are password protected, then the gallery names (and featured pictures) would be accessible to someone who guessed the category name. But the actual photos would not be accessible.
It's certainly behavior counter to what I'd expect. Hidden is not hidden for the iPhone interface, if I'm understanding correctly.
Seastack, I agree with your comments on the branding. I don't mind a brief, subtle note in an out-of-the-way part of the site, but seeing "portions copyright SmugMug" on all my pages really gets under my skin. True, the code is SmugMug's. True, it's copyrighted. But to anyone seeing a copyright message on a gallery page, the immediate logical leap is that at least some of the content is owned by SmugMug.
Anyway, I'm digressing from my original request, so I'll zip it now.
I'm sorry that you don't know this. We don't delete posts, unless they are Spam, or against Dgrin rules. We value and want all opinions and feedback.
Thanks for yours.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
And why don't we have copy to gallery! This is one of the biggest frustrations for me along with the lack of subgalleries. Yes, we have make second copy, but only one image at a time. Why can't we do this in bulk then move photos to another gallery.
I Reject Your Reality And Substitute My Own - Adam Savage
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
<o:p></o:p>
Category (Sports)\Sub-Category(type of sport)\Gallery(Event or Team)\Sub-Gallery(Race Number or Team or Participant)<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Not having this ability when you only have a few events on your site is not a problem, but as the numbers increase, you end up with a very difficult to navigate site. I've only just begun to start uploading content to my site, and I can see it turning into a problem once I have 400-500 events up there. It's also a problem when you have thousands of shots for a single event. My customers do not want to have to click through 500 photos to get to find the three photos of their kid.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I understand the balancing that needs to be done between number or clicks and customer dissatisfaction with the navigation experience, but when customers need to scroll though a few hundred galleries to find the one that contains their event or the three shots of their kid, I'd say the balance equation is not quite right.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I know you are going to come back and say "use keywords". Keywords are fine for some things, but I have customers that like to just click through to what they want. I shoot for a lot of non-English speakers, and they have a very difficult time using search. They are successful when clicking through though. (It's the same thing as your general rule of "Let the customer choose the crop". I followed that advice with the first few event galleries I put up and got no sales. When I spoke with these non-English speakers to find out why, they uniformly said they did not like the framing of the image. They did not understand that they could choose the composition of the shot themselves. As a result, I will be cropping everything before uploading from now on.) My point here is that while I understand the need to hit the majority of users with your feature choices, these corner cases are important to some of your Pro customers like me, and the lack of configurability presents significant customer satisfaction issues not just for your Pro customers, but also to our customers.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
As to CJYPHOTO's comment Andy, I've been aggravated that "copy to gallery" is not an available feature too. It has nothing to do with "unlimited storage of photos on SmugMug" but rather work flow. To illustrate the issue, say that you want to copy 200 shots into a different gallery, at present you have two choices - you can manually make a second copy of each photo an then move them to the second gallery, or you can upload them all a second time into the second gallery. Neither of these options are very efficient. I've run into this twice in the last month. Having the ability to select multiple photos and chose "copy to gallery" would solve the issue.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
$0.02<o:p></o:p>
www.bellafaccie.com
Hi, put yourself in our shoes
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
borealphoto.smugmug.com
It's ironic to me, that you'd want us to click-click-click and make things worse
We hope to have smart galleries that will solve this n-levels thing for any and all.
Erick, keep the feedback coming you know we love it.
Pee, you too
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
http://wiki.smugmug.com/display/SmugMug/Hacks+and+Apps
Both tools make site admin works so easy. I can't speak highly enough about them.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
I don't. I'm just pointing out the irony because I see it in other places. And deeper levels is something we could choose to use or not, unlike the interface. The external tools are fine, until you work on a different computer. And I only heard about smugbrowser months after I joined.
borealphoto.smugmug.com
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Andy, virtual galleries is really a pretty different thing from more levels of hierarchy. I've never even considered the two to be solutions to the same problem. I would use virtual galleries today to solve the problem of multiple views of the same images, not the problem of more levels of hierarchy.
As long as I've been frequenting this place (perhaps a similar amount of time as you), we've seen a steady stream of requests for at least one more level of hierarchy. The issue comes up fairly regularly and each time users are pretty surprised that Smugmug doesn't offer more.
I get it that some users would shoot themselves in the foot with too many levels of hierarchy. I've seen users use the max levels you have today when they only have a total of 8 galleries. It's absolutely silly.
But, just because some would misue the extra levels does not mean that there are not legitimate reasons for more levels. With so many competing services offering users what they are asking for, I think your resistance is starting to get old and stale. Yes, you should make it really easy for users to set things up. Yes, you should make it really easy for users to use the fewest number of levels of hierarchy needed. AND, yes when a user really wants more levels, you should offer it.
In the end, the customer's perception of what they think they need is their reality and if you continue to refuse to give it to them, they will go elsewhere. You can decide to not serve those customers because you think it will be misused too much by others and overall harm the Smugmug business or because you just never think it's important enough to do. If that's the case, then just tell them that you don't offer it and if they can't find a good solution using your other tools, then they should probably find a competing service. This "in between answer" that tries to tell a user they couldn't possibly need an extra level of hierarchy just gets old and makes people feel like you are telling them that you know better than they how to organize their own site.
I think you guys also have to remember that your customers are starting to grow up now with lots more galleries, lots more sub-categories and lots more photos. I've got 15,000 photos in 400+ galleries in my account that I use for school and sports events. I have categories that have so many sub-categories on them that they scroll on some screens. I'm not that far away from thinking that it's a better navigation model to use one more level of hierarchy than you offer today and I'm fully aware of the trade-offs involved in extra clicks and all the other options available to solve the problem.
I think you guys should rethink this limitation.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
I'm sorry you feel it's an inbetween answer
If we have a solid, definitive "no" - on an issue, we give it.
I don't think we have that here.
Thanks as always, for your input, John!
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Why yes I'd also like smart, virtual, or collection galleries also. Were are they?
People have been asking for sub galleries and the ability to copy images to another gallery for a long time now and what do we get? SmugIslands. Kind of the direct print feature of Canon DSLR's.
Once again I'd love to have virtual galleries if they are similar to collections in Zenfolio. I'd also love just one sub-gallery for when it is needed.
I Reject Your Reality And Substitute My Own - Adam Savage
On the other issue, Andy said there hasn't been a groundswell, and I think that is because every time some new user comes in, they ask for it and get shot down. Those of us that have been around for a loooong time (I don't post much, but I read these forums every day) are probably just too jaded about it to even bother asking, which hurts the establishment of a groundswell.
Frankly, this issue really bothers me. I begin to wonder if the "we know what you want to do better than you do" mindset is impossible to over come. I wonder if it has to do with management's relationship with Apple/NeXT/Cuppertino. This is a mindset that I see with Apple and it is a total turnoff (and part of the reason I refuse to use their products). Both Apple and SmugMug seem to reject features requested by some users on the grounds that "most people don't want them", "most people don't care", or (here is the most common one) "most people would be confused by having this feature". This is a bogus line of thinking, especially when no one is asking for the entire user interface to be changed, just an extra feature that no one would even be forced to use. Hell, as it stands, I don't even use subcategories, so I don't need another level, but I can see why many people do need it.
-r