Smugmug/Facebook Integration?

JDSX

Although I couldn't find any threads on exactly this topic I'm sure they're out there. I've been with SmugMug a while now but am increasingly encountering difficulties reconciling between Facebook and SmugMug. Sure, I have the Facebook apps for SmugMug like SmugFoto and Simple Mug but those are really just stopgap measures. The real issue is in the social tagging and sharing. Today I encountered a very simple example. My friend had one set of photos from an event and I had another set from that same event. He posted his on Facebook (as that's all he uses) and tagged everyone in it. We all saw ourselves tagged, it showed in our feeds, and they will remain connected to our profiles. I uploaded my set to SmugMug and, other than a news feed entry from Simple Mug, had no way to merge or reference back to my friend's album or tag the people in it.

SmugMug is obviously the better storage system but my personal community is elsewhere. I'm slowly being forced to decide which is more important when I'd obviously prefer the best of both. Is there anything in the works here that would address it?

Andy

Share Button >Be Social >Facebook.
We've got a couple bugs in it being fixed as we speak.

JDSX

Andy wrote:

Share Button >Be Social >Facebook.
We've got a couple bugs in it being fixed as we speak.

I didn't even know that was there but I'm not sure that really addresses the problem I mentioned above. In fact, that seems less efficient than the Simple Mug app I'm using now.

JDSX

I found a couple articles that might be of interest:

Which Photo Site Will be First to Embrace Facebook Connect?

Facebook Connects With 944 To Offer Round-Trip Photo Tagging]

If Facebook expands its own video/photo quality and functionality -- which is inevitable -- I think SmugMug and Flickr will take a significant hit. You'll lose a lot of your non-pro subscribers like me. It's not completely avoidable but it can be diminished if you integrate with Facebook in advance. I spend $60/year on SmugMug in order to have a place to store high quality photos/videos in an organized manner. In order to steal me away, Facebook would only have to offer better quality photos (they already allow 20min 720p videos), the ability to organize with sub-folders, and the ability to store videos inside those folders instead of separately as they are now. That's it. Facebook albums already have sufficient granularity for security.

BELphotos

Clicking on "Share Button >Be Social >Facebook ---> Connect" produces a link to the SmugMug home page. I thought that it might be a login problem so I pre-logged to Facebook, same results.

---


---

Is this one of bugs you are working on?
Thanks

petebocken

They know about this issue. It's because you are trying to connect to facebook with your customized domain. I have the same issue. Sucks. Hopefully will get fixed soon. The way around it is to copy out your domain name with your smugmug name (ie: whatever.smugmug.com) instead of (smugmugname.customdomain.com).

BELphotos wrote:

Clicking on "Share Button >Be Social >Facebook ---> Connect" produces a link to the SmugMug home page. I thought that it might be a login problem so I pre-logged to Facebook, same results.

---


---

Is this one of bugs you are working on?
Thanks

BELphotos

This broken item seems to be fixed now. I am able to go right through to FB now. However, there is still a minor bug; if you post to FB without placing a comment in the box, the posting goes nowhere. That needs to be fixed or noted to place a comment.

Thanks to whoever worked on the fix.

petebocken

Doesn't appear to be working for me still.

BELphotos wrote:

This broken item seems to be fixed now. I am able to go right through to FB now. However, there is still a minor bug; if you post to FB without placing a comment in the box, the posting goes nowhere. That needs to be fixed or noted to place a comment.

Thanks to whoever worked on the fix.

HoyBoy

It worked for about 10 seconds for me yesterday. I realized that I hadn't captioned the photo, so I canceled and haven't been able to make it work since. :cry

moose135

I'm still having a problem getting this to work (worked well in the past) I get the same SM homepage that petebocken shows above, and yes, when I try to link it, it is using my custom domain name. I tried entering my direct SM URL (moose135.smugmug.com) but every time I enter that manually into the address bar and hit "enter", it changes to my custom URL when the page refreshes.
The two galleries I've tried this with tonight are:

http://www.moose135photography.com/American-Airpower-Musuem/Berlin-Airlift-C-54/9463087_ksn2N#634980227_bWNdt

http://www.moose135photography.com/American-Airpower-Musuem/B-25H-Barbie-III/9464246_VzNBG/1/635130151_dudmS

intophotos

JDSX wrote:

Although I couldn't find any threads on exactly this topic I'm sure they're out there. I've been with SmugMug a while now but am increasingly encountering difficulties reconciling between Facebook and SmugMug. Sure, I have the Facebook apps for SmugMug like SmugFoto and Simple Mug but those are really just stopgap measures. The real issue is in the social tagging and sharing. Today I encountered a very simple example. My friend had one set of photos from an event and I had another set from that same event. He posted his on Facebook (as that's all he uses) and tagged everyone in it. We all saw ourselves tagged, it showed in our feeds, and they will remain connected to our profiles. I uploaded my set to SmugMug and, other than a news feed entry from Simple Mug, had no way to merge or reference back to my friend's album or tag the people in it.

SmugMug is obviously the better storage system but my personal community is elsewhere. I'm slowly being forced to decide which is more important when I'd obviously prefer the best of both. Is there anything in the works here that would address it?

I agree entirely. I'm finding my direct competition are posting & tagging on FB and I'm getting left behind with a seemingly empty FB stream because my photos are hosted at Smugmug. Sure I put links and send 'em over but they don't comment there and I can't tag directly in Smugmug so I'm not getting any referral as I would on FB.

I see that Flickr has now added tagging on their photos. Would be great if we could somehow tag our FB friends (inside Smugmug) and it appears in their/our streams and points back to our Smugmug images etc.

Just a thought (don't even know if it's possible) .. albeit a very handy & rewarding one!

BELphotos

Kiss your IP rights good-bye on Facebook
If you are posting your photos on Facebook, kiss the rights to your Intellectual Property (IP) good-bye. If you have never read Facebook's TOS, take a peek at section two. If you are a Pro, you work too hard to relinquish these rights. I offer this as a point of information.

From Facebook's TOS:

1. Sharing Your Content and Information You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings. In addition:
   1. For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos ("IP content"), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook ("IP License"). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.
   2. When you delete IP content, it is deleted in a manner similar to emptying the recycle bin on a computer. However, you understand that removed content may persist in backup copies for a reasonable period of time (but will not be available to others).
   3. When you add an application and use Platform, your content and information is shared with the application. We require applications to respect your privacy settings, but your agreement with that application will control how the application can use the content and information you share. (To learn more about Platform, read our About Platform page.)
   4. When you publish content or information using the "everyone" setting, it means that everyone, including people off of Facebook, will have access to that information and we may not have control over what they do with it.
   5. We always appreciate your feedback or other suggestions about Facebook, but you understand that we may use them without any obligation to compensate you for them (just as you have no obligation to offer them).

intophotos

BELphotos wrote:

If you are posting your photos on Facebook, kiss the rights to your Intellectual Property (IP) good-bye. If you have never read Facebook's TOS, take a peek at section two. If you are a Pro, you work too hard to relinquish these rights. I offer this as a point of information.

From Facebook's TOS:

1. Sharing Your Content and Information You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings. In addition:
   1. For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos ("IP content"), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook ("IP License"). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.
   2. When you delete IP content, it is deleted in a manner similar to emptying the recycle bin on a computer. However, you understand that removed content may persist in backup copies for a reasonable period of time (but will not be available to others).
   3. When you add an application and use Platform, your content and information is shared with the application. We require applications to respect your privacy settings, but your agreement with that application will control how the application can use the content and information you share. (To learn more about Platform, read our About Platform page.)
   4. When you publish content or information using the "everyone" setting, it means that everyone, including people off of Facebook, will have access to that information and we may not have control over what they do with it.
   5. We always appreciate your feedback or other suggestions about Facebook, but you understand that we may use them without any obligation to compensate you for them (just as you have no obligation to offer them).

Thank you BELPhotos, I am aware of this hence why you'll find my name and website clearly posted over the photos. If someone wishes to pass my images around or so forth at least it is giving me further exposure & referral.

For the free network tapping I gain through tagging clients in Facebook, I am happy to put my images there (watermarked of course) and allow anyone to market & spread the word for me.

I've learnt to embrace the changing tides & use them to my advantage instead of being left behind. Each one has to decide their comfort thresholds.

In saying that however, it still does not answer my question on how to correctly code incorporating the Smugmug badge or slideshows into FBML. If anyone is able to help, I will be sincerely appreciative.

Thanks in advance.

WinsomeWorks

intophotos wrote:

Thank you BELPhotos, I am aware of this hence why you'll find my name and website clearly posted over the photos. If someone wishes to pass my images around or so forth at least it is giving me further exposure & referral.

For the free network tapping I gain through tagging clients in Facebook, I am happy to put my images there (watermarked of course) and allow anyone to market & spread the word for me.

I've learnt to embrace the changing tides & use them to my advantage instead of being left behind. Each one has to decide their comfort thresholds.

In saying that however, it still does not answer my question on how to correctly code incorporating the Smugmug badge or slideshows into FBML. If anyone is able to help, I will be sincerely appreciative.

Thanks in advance.

I agree with you, intophotos... it can be a marketing tool just like anything else if used well. And anyway, BELphotos, as far as I'm concerned, they shrink the files so much as to render them useless for anything but a wallet-sized print. What I've been doing is downloading my watermarked, small-sized SmugMug files into a folder for Facebook upload. Then when FB shrinks it even more, I can be comfortable with people viewing & maybe even sharing the photos. I always put a link back to SmugMug on the album & tell folks to view them here where they look a thousand times better! Sorry though-- I don't know any answers to the actual question here.

HoofClix

Anyone know how I can get my Facebook badge in my footer to center?

BTW, I use the site it links to to monitor the kids who are screen-capping my images. if they don't friend up, then don't get a password..

JDSX

Facebook's photo functionality may be insufficient now, but how much more would they need to add to completely crush SmugMug? Not much, in my opinion. I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet.

SamirD

intophotos wrote:

I agree entirely. I'm finding my direct competition are posting & tagging on FB and I'm getting left behind with a seemingly empty FB stream because my photos are hosted at Smugmug. Sure I put links and send 'em over but they don't comment there and I can't tag directly in Smugmug so I'm not getting any referral as I would on FB.

FB should not be the only reason that someone goes to another person's galleries versus yours. All things being equal, yes, but that means it's time to step up the game.

I shoot nightlife regularly as well as car events. I'm not even on FB, and the partyiers find my images because they're second to none. I'll do simple marketing of the gallery like post a link on a local nightlife forum, the dj/band website, the venue, but that's about it. I allow external linking, but not right click, so people will link to the gallery in FB. It also helps when the band/dj/venue helps spread the word by putting a link on their FB, but this rarely happens.

WinsomeWorks

JDSX wrote:

Facebook's photo functionality may be insufficient now, but how much more would they need to add to completely crush SmugMug? Not much, in my opinion. I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet.

Oh my words. Are you kidding me? Facebook photos have almost no functionality at all, except tagging. I mean, I don't even know where to start with how lousy the photo display (blurry and dark), organization, options, and even sharing are. There's not even a minute fraction of the capability we have on SmugMug. No comparison. And when you're in a group there, you can't even put the photos in albums... ridiculous. Tagging is the only thing I can think of that we can't do (yet) here. On FB, none of your info. (IPTC or whatever) is saved at all-- not even its original filename. The photo is basically orphaned. It's really the pits. That's why I use it in a very specific way. I will also not be one bit surprised if they start charging for photo storage, because I don't see how they can keep up the pace with how many photos are added daily.

SamirD

WinsomeWorks wrote:

Oh my words. Are you kidding me? Facebook photos have almost no functionality at all, except tagging. I mean, I don't even know where to start with how lousy the photo display (blurry and dark), organization, options, and even sharing are. There's not even a minute fraction of the capability we have on SmugMug. No comparison. And when you're in a group there, you can't even put the photos in albums... ridiculous. Tagging is the only thing I can think of that we can't do (yet) here. On FB, none of your info. (IPTC or whatever) is saved at all-- not even its original filename. The photo is basically orphaned. It's really the pits. That's why I use it in a very specific way. I will also not be one bit surprised if they start charging for photo storage, because I don't see how they can keep up the pace with how many photos are added daily.

Great info! I've been researching FB on and off for a while now, and it's great to hear insights like this.

JDSX

WinsomeWorks wrote:

Oh my words. Are you kidding me? Facebook photos have almost no functionality at all, except tagging. I mean, I don't even know where to start with how lousy the photo display (blurry and dark), organization, options, and even sharing are. There's not even a minute fraction of the capability we have on SmugMug. No comparison. And when you're in a group there, you can't even put the photos in albums... ridiculous. Tagging is the only thing I can think of that we can't do (yet) here. On FB, none of your info. (IPTC or whatever) is saved at all-- not even its original filename. The photo is basically orphaned. It's really the pits. That's why I use it in a very specific way. I will also not be one bit surprised if they start charging for photo storage, because I don't see how they can keep up the pace with how many photos are added daily.

Most people don't care about any of those missing things except for organization and preserving original quality. Preserving the photo metadata wouldn't be difficult at all though. Meanwhile FB has tagging and the community to tag from and share to.

Yes, I'd also expect them to charge for the extra functionality but I'd happily pay it.

WinsomeWorks

JDSX wrote:

Most people don't care about any of those missing things except for organization and preserving original quality. Preserving the photo metadata wouldn't be difficult at all though. Meanwhile FB has tagging and the community to tag from and share to.

Yes, I'd also expect them to charge for the extra functionality but I'd happily pay it.

I think anyone who regularly uses a site as great as SmugMug misses all those things immensely! And no, of course preserving metadata is not difficult-- but FB has no interest in doing that, because it would preserve the copyright instead of creating an orphan work! They have no interest in that & I doubt they'll ever do it. The biggest missing thing: the missing attractiveness of the photos on FB, is kinda sorta pretty huge for a bunch of photographers! Yes, I've got a lot of photos on FB, but at the same time I sometimes hate having people even see them there-- because they look horrible. Most of them darken by as much as 30% I'd say. And the fuzziness? Yuck! There's also no print capability on there, so why would they have any interest in storing huge files like SmugMug does? No themes, no auto-populating of fields, no keywording, no searches, no proper display of galleries, no viewing choices, lousy organizing tools in a gallery, no real virtual galleries, and worst of all-- you have to put up with advertising all over the page. I could go on for pages...

JDSX

WinsomeWorks wrote:

I think anyone who regularly uses a site as great as SmugMug misses all those things immensely! And no, of course preserving metadata is not difficult-- but FB has no interest in doing that, because it would preserve the copyright instead of creating an orphan work! They have no interest in that & I doubt they'll ever do it. The biggest missing thing: the missing attractiveness of the photos on FB, is kinda sorta pretty huge for a bunch of photographers! Yes, I've got a lot of photos on FB, but at the same time I sometimes hate having people even see them there-- because they look horrible. Most of them darken by as much as 30% I'd say. And the fuzziness? Yuck! There's also no print capability on there, so why would they have any interest in storing huge files like SmugMug does? No themes, no auto-populating of fields, no keywording, no searches, no proper display of galleries, no viewing choices, lousy organizing tools in a gallery, no real virtual galleries, and worst of all-- you have to put up with advertising all over the page. I could go on for pages...

You're entitled to your opinion but, from my own perspective, you're overstating SmugMug's value to consumers. I've been using this site for five years. I'm sure SmugMug would preserve itself as a niche site for serious photographers but, for regular people looking for photo storage/sharing, it wouldn't take much for Facebook to lure us away. Rather than see it happen I'm proactively prompting SmugMug to at least try to find a way to integrate FB tagging into galleries here. I don't know if it's even possible but they really should try.

WinsomeWorks

JDSX wrote:

You're entitled to your opinion but, from my own perspective, you're overstating SmugMug's value to consumers. I've been using this site for five years. I'm sure SmugMug would preserve itself as a niche site for serious photographers but, for regular people looking for photo storage/sharing, it wouldn't take much for Facebook to lure us away. Rather than see it happen I'm proactively prompting SmugMug to at least try to find a way to integrate FB tagging into galleries here. I don't know if it's even possible but they really should try.

Just doesn't seem to me like solely a "niche" when FB doesn't even have real photo "consumers"-- i.e. you can't even buy prints on it, and you can't even really "store" your photos there because they're shrinking your files down to nothingness. Photos are a secondary focus on FB. On SmugMug, photos are THE focus, and yes, there are thousands of pros here. Sure, lots of people will have both, but I don't see anyone who's using SmugMug for its photo capabilities being able to really depend on FB to deliver the capabilities they want. Above all, FB will never be ad-free & that's one of the worst parts of all for people who actually care about their photos. Even without a SmugVault (yet), I get great peace-of-mind with SmugMug that I can retrieve 1000s of my best files anytime because they have them on several servers around the country. It helps me sleep at night & breathe through thunderstorms and hurricanes, & I'm not exaggerating. FB is far from doing that for me. If tagging is a big concern, I'm sure you can have hope that it'll get implemented sometime. --Anna Lisa (P.S.-- I'm about to pay my membership dues, and imho, it's the best money I spend all year)

JDSX

WinsomeWorks wrote:

Just doesn't seem to me like solely a "niche" when FB doesn't even have real photo "consumers"-- i.e. you can't even buy prints on it, and you can't even really "store" your photos there because they're shrinking your files down to nothingness. Photos are a secondary focus on FB. On SmugMug, photos are THE focus, and yes, there are thousands of pros here. Sure, lots of people will have both, but I don't see anyone who's using SmugMug for its photo capabilities being able to really depend on FB to deliver the capabilities they want. Above all, FB will never be ad-free & that's one of the worst parts of all for people who actually care about their photos. Even without a SmugVault (yet), I get great peace-of-mind with SmugMug that I can retrieve 1000s of my best files anytime because they have them on several servers around the country. It helps me sleep at night, & I'm not exaggerating. If tagging is a big concern, I'm sure you can have hope that it'll get implemented sometime.

You're talking about selling prints, I'm talking about sharing photos. The people who care about selling prints will keep SmugMug going but the many who just want to share photos will find themselves easily lured away. This has been my point throughout.

I already agreed that FB would have to store the original quality photo as part of this speculative expansion of their service along with other easily-added features. I also wouldn't be too worried about FB's ability to back things up properly. Last I checked they're up to 30,000 servers worldwide.

I don't know how you can say that FB will never be ad-free. It's not unheard of to exclude ads from premium sections of a site.

WinsomeWorks

JDSX wrote:

You're talking about selling prints, I'm talking about sharing photos. The people who care about selling prints will keep SmugMug going but the many who just want to share photos will find themselves easily lured away. This has been my point throughout.

I already agreed that FB would have to store the original quality photo as part of this speculative expansion of their service along with other easily-added features. I also wouldn't be too worried about FB's ability to back things up properly. Last I checked they're up to 30,000 servers worldwide.

I don't know how you can say that FB will never be ad-free. It's not unheard of to exclude ads from premium sections of a site.

Well, to me this is just all comparing apples and oranges. Currently there's just so much that isn't even on the same wavelength on FB that I can't even see how they would get there. Sure, if sharing a low-quality file is all someone wants & they don't care about all those other benefits, they might just end up using FB exclusively for their photos. But my point is that people here on SmugMug ended up here for a reason in the first place, and it is probably that they do care! So I don't see much of a "lure" unless FB improves photo capability very very dramatically. I share way more photos here than I sell, by sending my family links. They can do all kinds of things with that gallery I send them to. So it's not as if we don't have sharing here as well. We can even put badges & slideshows on people's websites, which is fantastic. If I wanna tag people, I just put 'em on FB as well & tag people... the people I'd usually wanna tag are on FB anyway, not here. FB can't give me peace of mind with their storage until they preserve metadata & original file size, but I think you understand that.

JDSX

WinsomeWorks wrote:

Well, to me this is just all comparing apples and oranges. Currently there's just so much that isn't even on the same wavelength on FB that I can't even see how they would get there. Sure, if sharing a low-quality file is all someone wants & they don't care about all those other benefits, they might just end up using FB exclusively for their photos. But my point is that people here on SmugMug ended up here for a reason in the first place, and it is probably that they do care! So I don't see much of a "lure" unless FB improves photo capability very very dramatically. I share way more photos here than I sell, by sending my family links. They can do all kinds of things with that gallery I send them to. So it's not as if we don't have sharing here as well. We can even put badges & slideshows on people's websites, which is fantastic. If I wanna tag people, I just put 'em on FB as well & tag people... the people I'd usually wanna tag are on FB anyway, not here. FB can't give me peace of mind with their storage until they preserve metadata & original file size, but I think you understand that.

I don't understand why you keep making statements like that. I am one of the people on here and I'm trying to tell you that the reason I've been paying a subscription to this site for 5 years had nothing to do with selling prints or adding badges to other sites. I needed a place to store, organize, and share photos/videos. That's really it. Right now SmugMug still meets that need the best but I'm predicting that if Facebook adds those features, SmugMug will lose customers like me and I don't think I'm unique.

WinsomeWorks

JDSX wrote:

I don't understand why you keep making statements like that. I am one of the people on here and I'm trying to tell you that the reason I've been paying a subscription to this site for 5 years had nothing to do with selling prints or adding badges to other sites. I needed a place to store, organize, and share photos/videos. That's really it. Right now SmugMug still meets that need the best but I'm predicting that if Facebook adds those features, SmugMug will lose customers like me and I don't think I'm unique.

Right. I get that. But it all hinges on "IF" FB did all that, and I guess I just have a lot less confidence than you that they will. I have never had a feeling that FB actually cares about my photos at all. FB is humongous, & doesn't even care that you have to scroll through pages of one row of thumbs to find one of your many galleries, even though there's a whole empty page there. FB is just a huge social site (& has other more "important" services), & I sure won't hold my breath that they're going to get real concerned about my little photos. The other day I even had a call from a SmugMug hero who was determined to help me figure out a watermarking issue, and proceeded to do so. So, yeah, I'm not trying to pick a fight, just saying... I don't see those "IFs" happening for a long time on FB. If they do, they do... and at the same time, SmugMug will have continued to improve too, & then we'd all have to make our choices. Meanwhile, the lure ain't great in my eyes. If the lure is great for someone else, so be it. I'm not stopping them... just sharing my SmugLove!

JDSX

WinsomeWorks wrote:

Right. I get that. But it all hinges on "IF" FB did all that, and I guess I just have a lot less confidence than you that they will. I have never had a feeling that FB actually cares about my photos at all. FB is humongous, & doesn't even care that you have to scroll through pages of one row of thumbs to find one of your many galleries, even though there's a whole empty page there. FB is just a huge social site (& has other more "important" services), & I sure won't hold my breath that they're going to get real concerned about my little photos. The other day I even had a call from a SmugMug hero who was determined to help me figure out a watermarking issue, and proceeded to do so. So, yeah, I'm not trying to pick a fight, just saying... I don't see those "IFs" happening for a long time on FB. If they do, they do... and at the same time, SmugMug will have continued to improve too, & then we'd all have to make our choices. Meanwhile, the lure ain't great in my eyes. If the lure is great for someone else, so be it. I'm not stopping them... just sharing my SmugLove!

This all falls under business planning. Facebook has a plan for expanding its income and I'm sure SmugMug does too. I'm asking SmugMug to consider the possibility of FB's plan impacting its own and I outlined how it might. That's all.

SamirD

The ability to tag photos on fb is the missing link for SM, and it's in the top 10 most wanted things on smugmug.uservoice.com. For those that just want to 'share' photos, there will always be a free or cheaper option that doesn't offer pro features. That's definitely a different product than SM, IMO.

JDSX

SamirD wrote:

The ability to tag photos on fb is the missing link for SM, and it's in the top 10 most wanted things on smugmug.uservoice.com. For those that just want to 'share' photos, there will always be a free or cheaper option that doesn't offer pro features. That's definitely a different product than SM, IMO.

Thanks for sharing that.

WinsomeWorks

JDSX wrote:

Thanks for sharing that.

I was going to find you the exact link for it-- I think I've even voted for it. However, tonight the whole Uservoice forum seems to be inaccessible (to me, anyway). It's telling me it's an infected file or something. Hopefully it will be resurrected soon. I didn't remember that tagging was in the top 10, but knew it was very high on the list of requests. That's why I said I figured it would happen sometime. If you haven't signed up there yet, that's a great place to register these requests.