I told you a hundred times that I don't want descriptions in my galleries. It is not needed, except to remove your description. Why doesn't SM just remove it?
- I don't want people tracking the source, unlisted or not.
- I don't want filenames showing.
- URL will be lost if the photo is moved.
- URL is ridiculously long.
You make a few too many assumptions here.
If you don't want people to know the source, then you have the option of linking to images in unlisted galleries. You also have the option of linking to a non-nicename URL from any gallery. For example, this is the nicename link to a public image of mine: http://jfriend.smugmug.com/Kenya/Highlights/Landscapes/JF23827/344291068_HdnTo-L.jpg But, you can always just modify it yourself to link to the non-nicename one and it links to the same image: http://jfriend.smugmug.com/photos/344291068_HdnTo-L.jpg as it works too. This way you get a choice. You can still use the old style links if you want.
Actually, the URL will not be lost if the image is moved. The nicename part of the URL is not used if the image ID and key is there. Try it yourself. This mangled URL from about: http://jfriend.smugmug.com/xxKenya/xxHighlights/xxLandscapes/xxJF23827/344291068_HdnTo-L.jpg will still work. Images can be moved and URLs will not stop working if the image is moved. The same is true of a gallery link that has category and subcategory in it. As long as you also have the gallery number, the category and sub-category can change and the link will still take you to the right gallery.
URLs are long (that's how the niceness for SEO gets in them). You can use the shorter version if you want.
as it works too. This way you get a choice. You can still use the old style links if you want.
Actually, the URL will not be lost if the image is moved. The nicename part of the URL is not used if the image ID and key is there. Try it yourself. This mangled URL from about:
will still work. Images can be moved and URLs will not stop working if the image is moved. The same is true of a gallery link that has category and subcategory in it. As long as you also have the gallery number, the category and sub-category can change and the link will still take you to the right gallery.
URLs are long (that's how the niceness for SEO gets in them). You can use the shorter version if you want.
I want to opt out so I don't have to link from unlisted galleries or use the old URL. That's the point.
I want to opt out so I don't have to link from unlisted galleries or use the old URL. That's the point.
You can opt out by just using the old URL. The solution is there if you want it. Smugmug did think this through fairly thoroughly. Perhaps can't please 100% of the folks 100% of the time, but it's a generally good change and those that want to use old style links have that option.
Your response makes me regret taking the time to explain all your options to you. I'm just a volunteer here trying to help offer solutions.
I told you a hundred times that I don't want descriptions in my galleries. It is not needed, except to remove your description. Why doesn't SM just remove it?
I'm sorry, I wish you'd take my advice and get better search results
I wish I had a better answer, Erick. I'm really sorry.
I'm sorry, I wish you'd take my advice and get better search results
It won't get me better results.
I already have a proper site description fomr DMOZ, no tricks needed. Google uses it.
Since the day I joined, I asked SM to add proper titles before and I was told "title tags are not life changing". A few weeks later SM was raving about titles and fixed it properly about a year later. Sorry Andy, I don't take SEO advice from SM.
You can opt out by just using the old URL. The solution is there if you want it. Smugmug did think this through fairly thoroughly. Perhaps can't please 100% of the folks 100% of the time, but it's a generally good change and those that want to use old style links have that option.
Your response makes me regret taking the time to explain all your options to you. I'm just a volunteer here trying to help offer solutions.
I'm sorry jfriend. I already knew the options. You asked why I want to opt out and I answered. Using the old url is more work.
You still haven't answered my question: WHY doesn't SM remove it's description? Don't tell me what I should do. SM announced with trumpets how it removed its paw from Pro accounts. Why is this still here?
You still haven't answered my question: WHY doesn't SM remove it's description? Don't tell me what I should do. SM announced with trumpets how it removed its paw from Pro accounts. Why is this still here?
Erick, it may change, but there are so many other things more important than this right now on our plate. Especially since adding a description helps findability. Most folks are thrilled to see their own description being found by google and being listed in their results.
Erick, it may change, but there are so many other things more important than this right now on our plate. Especially since adding a description helps findability. Most folks are thrilled to see their own description being found by google and being listed in their results.
It does not help findability. It only serves for display in the SERP, not for being found. This is from Google:
And it's worth noting that while accurate meta descriptions can improve clickthrough, they won't affect your ranking within search results.
I told you a hundred times that Google will use page content if it can't find a description. In fact, Google is smart enough to figure SM description is bogus and doesn't always include it. Google was also smart enough to use my DMOZ description. I'm trilled by that and it would be a whole lot easier if SM would just step aside.
See how smart Google is in the first result. People see relevent, to-the-point, nothing-but-content text and click. Unfortunatly, SM gets in the way for the second result, and people don't click:
It does not help findability. It only serves for display in the SERP, not for being found. This is from Google:
....I told you a hundred times that Google will use page content if it can't find a description. ....
Goodness. This "I told you a hundred times" thing gets a little old. People here are trying to be patient and helpful, Erick, and that's what they do here day in & day out. They're fixing and improving things faster than most of us can even keep up. This one change may be worse for you somehow (although I still haven't figured out what's so awful about it) but it would be pretty tough to allow everyone ways of opting out of each & every change here, especially when there are work-arounds. I'm trying to be understanding, but I just think you'll have better communication here if you take a less heated & more mature-sounding approach, even though everyone so far has been quite even-handed, imho. Your photos will speak for themselves even with this change, but only if you let them. Just my 2 cents, & when I get out-of-hand, you're welcome to remind me of the same!
In the words of SM, "I'm sorry you feel that way", WinsomeWorks. If you actually read my posts in this thread, you'd see that I stated that I don't like the change, the reasons I don't like it and if there's a way to opt out. And that was that. The rest, including the part where you quoted me, doesn't have anything to do with the change but with SM's meta-description and SM's SEO in general.
Since I started this mess I thought I'd post an update:
Yes - the links to images in unlisted galleries is fixed. THANKS
But I'm still going to complain about the inclusion of the original filename in the URL to the images in public galleries.
I understand the SEO issue. If I rename my files before I upload them to something like "gw_bridge_oct09.jpg" then maybe it'll get indexed better. But seriously, what genius at SM can explain how "DSC7209bw2" in the URL offers anything for me in terms of SEO?
The answer is simple: It doesn't. All it does is reveal my original filenames which I don't want. It inconveniently requires me to go back and rename-and-reupload every single public image on my site to make the urls relevant (or to hide whatever generic names I might have used in the past), and the additional requirement that I rename every single image I upload in the future.
I'm really sorry- we've been asked for a long time for this. Better SEO is something that's paramount for so many people. And a photo named lightning-flying-unicorns.jpg will be found so much easier than DSC_1764.jpg.
Yes, your photos that have no descriptive filenames on your site now, don't benefit from this. But any that you add in the future with them, will.
Since I started this mess I thought I'd post an update:
Yes - the links to images in unlisted galleries is fixed. THANKS
But I'm still going to complain about the inclusion of the original filename in the URL to the images in public galleries.
I understand the SEO issue. If I rename my files before I upload them to something like "gw_bridge_oct09.jpg" then maybe it'll get indexed better. But seriously, what genius at SM can explain how "DSC7209bw2" in the URL offers anything for me in terms of SEO?
The answer is simple: It doesn't. All it does is reveal my original filenames which I don't want. It inconveniently requires me to go back and rename-and-reupload every single public image on my site to make the urls relevant (or to hide whatever generic names I might have used in the past), and the additional requirement that I rename every single image I upload in the future.
Sorry guys. FAIL. Big time.
FYI, I know this isn't the entirety of your issue, but if you are posting an external link somewhere, you can just remove the original filename part from the link and the link works just fine so it doesn't have to pollute external links that you post yourself. The original filename is of no interest to me either since mine are unchanged from the camera.
I'm really sorry- we've been asked for a long time for this. Better SEO is something that's paramount for so many people.
I'm sorry too Andy. Not having an option to turn this "feature" off is overwhelmingly dumb and you guys have just caused me to do a massive amount of work to make things the way I want.
you can just remove the original filename part from the link and the link works just fine so it doesn't have to pollute external links that you post yourself.
Yes but if anyone goes to that link directly smugmug automatically regenerates the URL to include the original filename. The only way around it is to replace everything in the path to "/photos/". Meanwhile everything on my smugmug site still includes the filenames.
Erick, it may change, but there are so many other things more important than this right now on our plate. Especially since adding a description helps findability. Most folks are thrilled to see their own description being found by google and being listed in their results.
I don't think it would take much time to remove a few words and it would make everyone a favor. That description is only good for smugmug.com. Several sites, including yours, have galleries with the smugmug description. Should I repeat again that it does not improve ranking?
Well - ok. Yesterday I fully intended on pulling everything off my smugmug site to be reloaded on a competitor's site. Aside from the obvious custom layout features on SM I noticed the images just plain didn't look as good. The additional sharpening we can add here (with custom tweaks) make the smaller images look so much better. I'd forgotten about that, big kudos to SM for even thinking about adding it when they did.
That frankly made my complaints just a little less significant.
An observation though: My unlisted galleries generate the older style URLs pretty much the way I like it. Simply making an unlisted gallery "public" switched the new naming convention "on" instantly.
It seems to me that if the URL naming scheme can be toggled that easily then it shouldn't be that big a challenge to add an additional option in the gallery customization to switch the URL naming in any gallery.
Yeah yeah, I can hear mumblings now "people don't like feature bloat". Whatever...I'd like to see the option - take it as a request.
Yeah yeah, I can hear mumblings now "people don't like feature bloat". Whatever...I'd like to see the option - take it as a request.
This is a HUGE factor. Ever time we add a button, knob, dial, setting- it complicates the UI, help pages, our testing process, our development process. Each addition has huge impact and ripple effect. We must consider these very seriously (and do) before adding anything.
I was thinking about this new feature that is designed to improve image search optimization, and I decided that I don't like the way it's been implemented. The problem is its use of filenames for picking out key words to add to the URL.
I wish smugmug would stop relying on our original filenames for anything. I think it's a bad practice. If I uploaded files to smugmug here and there every once in a while, I might give each one a nice descriptive unique name. But like many smugmug users, I upload files in bulk. 100+ at a time, usually.
I do what smugmug recommends and caption and keyword each file. I do not give each file a descriptive filename... that seems like a giant waste of time. Filenames happen in bulk. For a while I was using filenames straight from the camera... IMG_1234.jpg for example. That's got advantages and disadvantages as far as smugmug is concerned. It was nice that "1234" didn't become a junk keyword, since smugmug is smart enough to filter out filenames that start with IMG. The disadvantage, I found, is that the arrange tool won't sort those filenames alphabetically.
So I started renaming my files as they got imported... I use YYYY-MM-DD_1234.jpg format. I really like this for finding images on my computer. I take a lot of pictures and have at least 3 different IMG_1234.jpgs in different folders. Unique names are...unique. Much better. But then I get keywords like "1234." Ugh, can't win.
So this new feature comes along. I decide to change my file naming scheme to try to play along. I'll add a keyword to my filenames. But of course they're all getting the same keyword upon import... I'm not renaming all those files. That would be a waste of time.
So here I am, creating junky new keywords i need to remove after upload AND polutting the image search engines' databases by giving my photos filenames that aren't really correct.
Smugmug doesn't let me edit filenames (after uploading), but it does let me edit keywords. Why don't we use them appropriately? I want search engines to find my captions and keywords. Why would i want image searches to find my filenames?? I spent all that time keywording for a reason!
So how about giving us some control over what words end up in the URL? Our keywords would be a good start.
Let's stop creating junk from bulk-created filenames!
Comments
http://www.borealphoto.com/Animals/Oiseaux-Birds/3680469_MZ5sQ#658537206_s2uxn
example, that gallery has no description. So, you get ours in your search result.
Add gallery descriptions to all your galleries. Watch "ultimate photo sharing" disappear.
Oh and put a short descriptive description of you/your business in your bio box.
http://www.smugmug.com/help/search-engines
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
borealphoto.smugmug.com
You make a few too many assumptions here.
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 want to opt out so I don't have to link from unlisted galleries or use the old URL. That's the point.
borealphoto.smugmug.com
Your response makes me regret taking the time to explain all your options to you. I'm just a volunteer here trying to help offer solutions.
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 wish I had a better answer, Erick. I'm really sorry.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
It won't get me better results.
I already have a proper site description fomr DMOZ, no tricks needed. Google uses it.
Since the day I joined, I asked SM to add proper titles before and I was told "title tags are not life changing". A few weeks later SM was raving about titles and fixed it properly about a year later. Sorry Andy, I don't take SEO advice from SM.
borealphoto.smugmug.com
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
I'm sorry jfriend. I already knew the options. You asked why I want to opt out and I answered. Using the old url is more work.
borealphoto.smugmug.com
You still haven't answered my question: WHY doesn't SM remove it's description? Don't tell me what I should do. SM announced with trumpets how it removed its paw from Pro accounts. Why is this still here?
borealphoto.smugmug.com
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
It does not help findability. It only serves for display in the SERP, not for being found. This is from Google:
I told you a hundred times that Google will use page content if it can't find a description. In fact, Google is smart enough to figure SM description is bogus and doesn't always include it. Google was also smart enough to use my DMOZ description. I'm trilled by that and it would be a whole lot easier if SM would just step aside.
See how smart Google is in the first result. People see relevent, to-the-point, nothing-but-content text and click. Unfortunatly, SM gets in the way for the second result, and people don't click:
borealphoto.smugmug.com
DayBreak, my Folk Music Group (some free mp3s!) http://daybreakfolk.com
borealphoto.smugmug.com
Yes - the links to images in unlisted galleries is fixed. THANKS
But I'm still going to complain about the inclusion of the original filename in the URL to the images in public galleries.
I understand the SEO issue. If I rename my files before I upload them to something like "gw_bridge_oct09.jpg" then maybe it'll get indexed better. But seriously, what genius at SM can explain how "DSC7209bw2" in the URL offers anything for me in terms of SEO?
The answer is simple: It doesn't. All it does is reveal my original filenames which I don't want. It inconveniently requires me to go back and rename-and-reupload every single public image on my site to make the urls relevant (or to hide whatever generic names I might have used in the past), and the additional requirement that I rename every single image I upload in the future.
Sorry guys. FAIL. Big time.
Yes, your photos that have no descriptive filenames on your site now, don't benefit from this. But any that you add in the future with them, will.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
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 too Andy. Not having an option to turn this "feature" off is overwhelmingly dumb and you guys have just caused me to do a massive amount of work to make things the way I want.
Time to move on I guess.
Yes but if anyone goes to that link directly smugmug automatically regenerates the URL to include the original filename. The only way around it is to replace everything in the path to "/photos/". Meanwhile everything on my smugmug site still includes the filenames.
Thanks for the suggestion though
I don't think it would take much time to remove a few words and it would make everyone a favor. That description is only good for smugmug.com. Several sites, including yours, have galleries with the smugmug description. Should I repeat again that it does not improve ranking?
borealphoto.smugmug.com
That frankly made my complaints just a little less significant.
An observation though: My unlisted galleries generate the older style URLs pretty much the way I like it. Simply making an unlisted gallery "public" switched the new naming convention "on" instantly.
It seems to me that if the URL naming scheme can be toggled that easily then it shouldn't be that big a challenge to add an additional option in the gallery customization to switch the URL naming in any gallery.
Yeah yeah, I can hear mumblings now "people don't like feature bloat". Whatever...I'd like to see the option - take it as a request.
Thanks for being so passionate about this. Add your voice to here please, too: http://smugmug.uservoice.com
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Are the wiki pages down? Can't seem to get to any of them. Like this one.
Flash Slideshow - SmugMug Wiki
My Website index | My Blog
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
setting in stupid Vista is blocking it.
My Website index | My Blog
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 wish smugmug would stop relying on our original filenames for anything. I think it's a bad practice. If I uploaded files to smugmug here and there every once in a while, I might give each one a nice descriptive unique name. But like many smugmug users, I upload files in bulk. 100+ at a time, usually.
I do what smugmug recommends and caption and keyword each file. I do not give each file a descriptive filename... that seems like a giant waste of time. Filenames happen in bulk. For a while I was using filenames straight from the camera... IMG_1234.jpg for example. That's got advantages and disadvantages as far as smugmug is concerned. It was nice that "1234" didn't become a junk keyword, since smugmug is smart enough to filter out filenames that start with IMG. The disadvantage, I found, is that the arrange tool won't sort those filenames alphabetically.
So I started renaming my files as they got imported... I use YYYY-MM-DD_1234.jpg format. I really like this for finding images on my computer. I take a lot of pictures and have at least 3 different IMG_1234.jpgs in different folders. Unique names are...unique. Much better. But then I get keywords like "1234." Ugh, can't win.
So this new feature comes along. I decide to change my file naming scheme to try to play along. I'll add a keyword to my filenames. But of course they're all getting the same keyword upon import... I'm not renaming all those files. That would be a waste of time.
So here I am, creating junky new keywords i need to remove after upload AND polutting the image search engines' databases by giving my photos filenames that aren't really correct.
Smugmug doesn't let me edit filenames (after uploading), but it does let me edit keywords. Why don't we use them appropriately? I want search engines to find my captions and keywords. Why would i want image searches to find my filenames?? I spent all that time keywording for a reason!
So how about giving us some control over what words end up in the URL? Our keywords would be a good start.
Let's stop creating junk from bulk-created filenames!
Dave