Dynamic galleries? (Assigning a photo to more than one gallery)

EdBeck

Is there a way that I can assign a photo to more than one gallery? So far all I’ve been able to do is use a hierarchical tree to assign a photo to a gallery, and if I wanted it in more than one I’ve uploaded it twice.
For example, say I go to Yellowstone and I take a picture of an elk. On SmugMug I have a gallery for national parks, and a gallery for animals. I want this elk to be in both galleries without having to upload it twice. It would be really great if I could set a “galleries” property to include it in multiple galleries.

HokkaidoStu

EdBeck wrote:

Is there a way that I can assign a photo to more than one gallery? So far all I’ve been able to do is use a hierarchical tree to assign a photo to a gallery, and if I wanted it in more than one I’ve uploaded it twice.
For example, say I go to Yellowstone and I take a picture of an elk. On SmugMug I have a gallery for national parks, and a gallery for animals. I want this elk to be in both galleries without having to upload it twice. It would be really great if I could set a “galleries” property to include it in multiple galleries.

Look at the feature request thread. A lot of people want this. Do a search for 'Virtual Galleries'.

It is a pretty basic feature. I don't believe it's so hard to implement. But for some reason Smugmug don't seem to want to do it even though it'll a) save them lots of space and b) save us lots of time.

jfriend

HokkaidoStu wrote:

Look at the feature request thread. A lot of people want this. Do a search for 'Virtual Galleries'.

It is a pretty basic feature. I don't believe it's so hard to implement. But for some reason Smugmug don't seem to want to do it even though it'll a) save them lots of space and b) save us lots of time.

I believe they've said they are going to do it - it's just a matter of several other things that come first (like coupons and packages). I'd disagree with your notion that it's easy to implement and say that to do it right, it is some pretty significant work.

Some folks are simulating this with keyword galleries depending upon exactly what you're trying to accomplish.

Andy

HokkaidoStu wrote:

Look at the feature request thread. A lot of people want this. Do a search for 'Virtual Galleries'.

It is a pretty basic feature. I don't believe it's so hard to implement. But for some reason Smugmug don't seem to want to do it even though it'll a) save them lots of space and b) save us lots of time.

http://smugmug.uservoice.com/pages/17723-smugmug/suggestions/200474-let-us-have-virtual-galleries?ref=title

It's hugely complex
And, we're still doing it.
We've said this all along, that we'll be doing it. It's on a short list.

HokkaidoStu

Andy wrote:

http://smugmug.uservoice.com/pages/17723-smugmug/suggestions/200474-let-us-have-virtual-galleries?ref=title

It's hugely complex
And, we're still doing it.
We've said this all along, that we'll be doing it. It's on a short list.

That's good news. I didn't know it was so complicated.........

EdBeck

Andy wrote:

http://smugmug.uservoice.com/pages/17723-smugmug/suggestions/200474-let-us-have-virtual-galleries?ref=title

It's hugely complex
And, we're still doing it.
We've said this all along, that we'll be doing it. It's on a short list.

Thanks Andy, yes, I understand that it's complex and I'll wait patiently for the feature.

I've only been thinking about it from your perspective for a few minutes and I can see some major problems to solve. At first glance one thinks it's easy, with a table for each gallery containing a list of indexes, but the backend starts to get complicated quickly when you consider things like different descriptions for different galleries, keeping track of how to how many galleries a picture is assigned so you can determine the proper behavior when a gallery is deleted, and designing a bullet-proof UI that allows a user to do it easily, but still funnel the information to the correct place.

Good luck, this is a can of worms

HokkaidoStu

EdBeck wrote:

I've only been thinking about it from your perspective for a few minutes and I can see some major problems to solve. At first glance one thinks it's easy, but the backend starts to get complicated quickly when you consider things like different descriptions for different galleries, keeping track of how to how many galleries a picture is assigned so you can determine the proper behavior when a gallery is deleted, and designing a bullet-proof UI that allows a user to do it easily, but still funnel the information to the correct place.

Well we pay 'em good money so they should be able to either sort it out themselves or pay a professional to do it.

Sorry but I can't believe it takes so long to do.

Seriously when will this be implemented? The feature request Andy mentioned above is already 3 months old and trawling through old threads people have been requesting this feature for much longer than that.

EdBeck

HokkaidoStu wrote:

Well we pay 'em good money so they should be able to either sort it out themselves or pay a professional to do it.

Sorry but I can't believe it takes so long to do.

Seriously when will this be implemented? The feature request Andy mentioned above is already 3 months old and trawling through old threads people have been requesting this feature for much longer than that.

Three whole months huh? Well jeeze, I didn’t realize it was so long.

So it’s been a while since I coded a database, and I know nothing about SmuMug’s backend, but here goes…

You currently have a 1:1 relationship between photos and galleries. Moving the current system to a 1:n relationship while preserving current data is not something that can be implemented in a few months. I’m just guessing here, but it seems to me that changing the structure in this way has massive potential for destabilization and has to be spec’d, reviewed, coded, tested, fixed, tested, stabilized and baked before you can even think about bringing it out in beta.

The fact that we pay good money is exactly why the developers are being careful in their implementation. How’d you like to wake up some morning and find all of your photos gone, vanished into thin air because the new backend was not properly developed or tested?


Furthermore, some people do a whole lot more than pay good money for an account. Some people (not me, I have a lowly power account) have pro accounts and make money from their photographs (again, not me, no chance of that in the next year or so). When you have people basing at least part of their income on a service which you provide, the stakes are raised an incredible amount. We are no longer talking about losing that cute little avatar that took all of 10 minutes to build, we’re talking about MONEY, which translates into food, shelter, clothing, and whatever your son or daughter can’t live without this week.

As for your comment about paying a professional to do it I’d like to hear your definition of a professional software developer. Does it involve eating pizza late at night and not validating your code before you check it in because you’d rather play guitar hero, or does it involve a methodical approach to planning, coding, testing, and implementing a feature set that co-exists with other components?

To the SmugMug developers, testers, support professionals and managers, I’d like to thank you for your dedication to your product. I’m very pleased with the capabilities for displaying my photographs, as well as being able to customize my site not only through an easy to use control panel, but also by customizing my own CSS and html pages. I’m looking forward to the new features when they are ready to be implemented.

HokkaidoStu

EdBeck wrote:

Three whole months huh? Well jeeze, I didn’t realize it was so long.


You currently have a 1:1 relationship between photos and galleries. Moving the current system to a 1:n relationship while preserving current data is not something that can be implemented in a few months.

Who says so? I agree it's a lot of work but ................

And no need for sarcasm either..................I just happen to think 3 months should be plenty of time to sort it out. And anyway people have been requesting it for years rather than months.

Andy

HokkaidoStu wrote:

Who says so? I agree it's a lot of work but ................

And no need for sarcasm either..................I just happen to think 3 months should be plenty of time to sort it out. And anyway people have been requesting it for years rather than months.

They have. But we have a long list of feature requests - over the years - some from Dgrin, some from user surveys, some from focus groups, some from our SMUGs Meetings, some from our uservoice page.

Dynamic galleries is on the list to do - it's planned.