Privacy setting not working right any more.
Maybe I’m not understanding this new feature, but here’s my two cents: Regarding the new “collectable” feature, I really wish you had left the default to “OFF”. I have had several photos of mine stolen and used on internet ads without my permission (not from SM), so I am very careful about allowing links. I have been testing this new feature on SM, and find these problems:
1. I have turned off “collectable”. Then in individual galleries, I turned off “external links.”
2. When I go to “visitors’ view”, I can still click on share, and send an e-mail with the photo! So even though someone cannot “collect” my photo or copy a link, they can still steal it by simply e-mailing it to themselves.
3. If you click on “be social”, you can link it to a Twitter account. I don’t want ANY links.
4. If I go to “share”, even though “external links” is turned off, people can still click on “feed links” and copy them.
5. If I look at a photo, then click on the largest size, if I right-click it says it is copy-protected, as it should, but now after clicking “OK”, it immediately changes to the regular menu (copy link, save as, etc.) It never did that before. It just gave the copyright notice.
THIS IS ALL WHEN IN “VISITORS VIEW”.
I know lots of people are happy about this feature, but I am not one of them. If, at least, it was turned OFF by default, it wouldn’t be so bad, but now everyone has to go through all of their galleries and reconfigure everything.
Sorry to be negative, but it seems like you’re making things easier for visitors, but more difficult for members.
Maybe I’m not understanding this new feature, but here’s my two cents: Regarding the new “collectable” feature, I really wish you had left the default to “OFF”. I have had several photos of mine stolen and used on internet ads without my permission (not from SM), so I am very careful about allowing links. I have been testing this new feature on SM, and find these problems:
1. I have turned off “collectable”. Then in individual galleries, I turned off “external links.”
2. When I go to “visitors’ view”, I can still click on share, and send an e-mail with the photo! So even though someone cannot “collect” my photo or copy a link, they can still steal it by simply e-mailing it to themselves.
3. If you click on “be social”, you can link it to a Twitter account. I don’t want ANY links.
4. If I go to “share”, even though “external links” is turned off, people can still click on “feed links” and copy them.
5. If I look at a photo, then click on the largest size, if I right-click it says it is copy-protected, as it should, but now after clicking “OK”, it immediately changes to the regular menu (copy link, save as, etc.) It never did that before. It just gave the copyright notice.
THIS IS ALL WHEN IN “VISITORS VIEW”.
I know lots of people are happy about this feature, but I am not one of them. If, at least, it was turned OFF by default, it wouldn’t be so bad, but now everyone has to go through all of their galleries and reconfigure everything.
Sorry to be negative, but it seems like you’re making things easier for visitors, but more difficult for members.
This is all within your control. If you don't want the public to be able to email themselves an image, then turn off Easy Sharing in your gallery settings.
If you don't want people to be able to link to your images, then turn off External Linking in your gallery settings.
Right-click protection is barely protection at all (it takes seconds to bypass). But, even when a user gets the right click menu on a right-click protected images (as you saw), if they try to right-click save it, they will just end up with a blank 1x1 px image.
You can turn off the ability to collect at the account level in the control panel.
If you need any other help disabling these sharing features, just ask a specific question. They can all be turned off. Remember, what you want for a site-wide default is likely very different from what someone else wants who is sharing family pictures. You just have to set it the way you want it. There is no single set of defaults that would work right for everyone.
Maybe I’m not understanding this new feature, but here’s my two cents: Regarding the new “collectable” feature, I really wish you had left the default to “OFF”. I have had several photos of mine stolen and used on internet ads without my permission (not from SM), so I am very careful about allowing links. I have been testing this new feature on SM, and find these problems:
1. I have turned off “collectable”. Then in individual galleries, I turned off “external links.”
2. When I go to “visitors’ view”, I can still click on share, and send an e-mail with the photo! So even though someone cannot “collect” my photo or copy a link, they can still steal it by simply e-mailing it to themselves.
3. If you click on “be social”, you can link it to a Twitter account. I don’t want ANY links.
4. If I go to “share”, even though “external links” is turned off, people can still click on “feed links” and copy them.
5. If I look at a photo, then click on the largest size, if I right-click it says it is copy-protected, as it should, but now after clicking “OK”, it immediately changes to the regular menu (copy link, save as, etc.) It never did that before. It just gave the copyright notice.
THIS IS ALL WHEN IN “VISITORS VIEW”.
I know lots of people are happy about this feature, but I am not one of them. If, at least, it was turned OFF by default, it wouldn’t be so bad, but now everyone has to go through all of their galleries and reconfigure everything.
Sorry to be negative, but it seems like you’re making things easier for visitors, but more difficult for members.
jfriend already covered this really well, but I just wanted to add:
A lot of the things you mentioned are a completely different feature that we've had for a long time, Easy Sharing. You can disable that button from your gallery settings with a click and that should take care of many of your issues. In addition, you can always disable collecting and RSS feeds from your Control Panel > Settings > Site-wide feature.
If you still have concerns or questions about security, just let us know.
Arrange images in virtual gallery
I feel silly having spent time getting all my "Best of " shots in one gallery, having the order random and not being able to put them in any sensible arrangement,eg drag around,sort by alpha(caption)
Have gotten conflicting info from this thread.....to clarify,
is it a) a problem being worked on
b) something that's coming in the next release
c) not possible in virtual galleries
I feel silly having spent time getting all my "Best of " shots in one gallery, having the order random and not being able to put them in any sensible arrangement,eg drag around,sort by alpha(caption)
Have gotten conflicting info from this thread.....to clarify,
is it a) a problem being worked on
b) something that's coming in the next release
c) not possible in virtual galleries
tx
You can apply gallery auto sort only. As best I know, that is currently your only control over the sort order.
I must say that the virtual galleries are working much better now. A couple that I keep an eye on have > 100 less pictures now so I guess the exclude's in my definition started working... just checked and indeed they work. Even multi-word keywords work now.
The only bug I currently see is that "Exlcude" instead of "Exclude" text in the button for the rules when you edit them in gallery settings (it was corrected in the dialog where you first create the rules but not in the edit dialog).
cheers,
Nick.
ciao!
Nick.
my equipment: Canon 5D2, 7D, full list here
my Smugmug site: here
Just went through and made my first virtual gallery of 'best of' pics... very disappointed to not be able to manually arrange them. I figured it was a bug and was going to email support. Hopefully they are working on this. Until I can sort the virtual gallery/collection, I'm going to have to still make my 'best of' galleries the old/wasteful way and copy everything to another gallery.
Do want to be a complainer, but manually arranging is a basic function that I use in just about every gallery.
Just went through and made my first virtual gallery of 'best of' pics... very disappointed to not be able to manually arrange them. I figured it was a bug and was going to email support. Hopefully they are working on this. Until I can sort the virtual gallery/collection, I'm going to have to still make my 'best of' galleries the old/wasteful way and copy everything to another gallery.
Do want to be a complainer, but manually arranging is a basic function that I use in just about every gallery.
Just went through and made my first virtual gallery of 'best of' pics... very disappointed to not be able to manually arrange them. I figured it was a bug and was going to email support. Hopefully they are working on this. Until I can sort the virtual gallery/collection, I'm going to have to still make my 'best of' galleries the old/wasteful way and copy everything to another gallery.
Sorry, but I can't help myself and must write this:
Sorting virtual galleries works just fine. Open the gallery, go to the Tools button and select "gallery settings". There you can define the sort order and it just works.
What you want to do is "arranging", which isn't sorting because you want to put them in an order which, for the computer, looks like a random order. You don't sort on alphabet, description, date taken or anything like that. Instead, you are defining an order based on your artistic skills.
I write this because I detect a lot of confusion in this thread about these terms (many report that they read "conflicting info" about it). I know that most photographers aren't computer geeks but if we all understand and use these terms correctly, there would not be any confusion about them. Photographers love their own terms (camera geeks really) like stopped down, glass, wide open etc. so it should not be a problem to add these two computer-related terms ;-)
What I don't understand is the term that SM came up with: "Auto sort". Yes it is automatic but it always is automatic on a computer, i.e. there is no manual sorting on computers. I think they came up with it to try and make clear the difference between sorting and arranging but I'm afraid it only adds to the confusion. As a retired software designer I would propose to rename that into "Gallery sort order" or just "Sort order" because it's clear it is for the gallery and rename "None" to "None (arrange manually)".
ciao!
Nick.
ciao!
Nick.
my equipment: Canon 5D2, 7D, full list here
my Smugmug site: here
What I don't understand is the term that SM came up with: "Auto sort". Yes it is automatic but it always is automatic on a computer, i.e. there is no manual sorting on computers. I think they came up with it to try and make clear the difference between sorting and arranging but I'm afraid it only adds to the confusion. As a retired software designer I would propose to rename that into "Gallery sort order" or just "Sort order" because it's clear it is for the gallery and rename "None" to "None (arrange manually)".
ciao!
Nick.
Auto-sort is "continual sort" as in the gallery is always automatically sorted.
There are two other arrange functions. One is "one-time sort" which is in Tools/Many Photos/Arrange/Sort where the images are sorted once and then the order stays fixed after that. In fact, you can do a one-time sort as an initial order and then manually move things around. Since it's not continual sort, it won't constantly resort when you add new images or manually move things around.
Then, there's manual positioning where (if auto-sort is off), you can manually move things around into any order you wish. This is the one that is not available in virtual galleries.
Users are regularly confused about these three. I don't think Smugmug does a particularly good job of making them easy to understand in the UI or in switching between them (auto-sort often conflicts with the other two).
So when someone arranges the photos in a smart gallery, where do people want the new photos to go that show up automagically because of a keyword change or someone voting? At the beginning or end maybe?
Manually arranging a gallery that is built dynamically, doesn't make much sense to me. Maybe there should be a concept of a snapshot (pun?) gallery. In other words, build it dynamically once, but needing to be manually refreshed for it to change. I can see having an arrange feature for something like that.
So when someone arranges the photos in a smart gallery, where do people want the new photos to go that show up automagically because of a keyword change or someone voting? At the beginning or end maybe?
Manually arranging a gallery that is built dynamically, doesn't make much sense to me. Maybe there should be a concept of a snapshot (pun?) gallery. In other words, build it dynamically once, but needing to be manually refreshed for it to change. I can see having an arrange feature for something like that.
New photos that suddenly become part of the gallery would have to go at the beginning or end (probably at the end). My main use of a manually arranged virtual gallery would not be one where photos were willy nilly coming and going. I'd have a master set of galleries that were up and not changing and I'd be using virtual galleries to offer alternate views of those galleries. I'd very much like to control the order of the images in the virtual gallery to best present them the way I want to.
Here's a more concrete example. I've got a sub-category full of 20 galleries for a sports season. The images are all keyworded by player, by game and by rating. They are up and not changing. I'd like to offer virtual galleries that let people view the entire season by player, by game and a highlights gallery of the top rated photos. But, I like to manually sort the galleries to show the best images first and to sometimes put images in a sequence in the right order.
I agree. New photos that become part of the gallery should go at the end. Getting my absolute best phots at the beginning of the gallery is why I would want to manually arrange them. I'm pulling artistic landscape pictures from several different personal vacation galleries and absolutely need to manually arrange them.
New photos that suddenly become part of the gallery would have to go at the beginning or end (probably at the end). My main use of a manually arranged virtual gallery would not be one where photos were willy nilly coming and going. I'd have a master set of galleries that were up and not changing and I'd be using virtual galleries to offer alternate views of those galleries. I'd very much like to control the order of the images in the virtual gallery to best present them the way I want to.
Here's a more concrete example. I've got a sub-category full of 20 galleries for a sports season. The images are all keyworded by player, by game and by rating. They are up and not changing. I'd like to offer virtual galleries that let people view the entire season by player, by game and a highlights gallery of the top rated photos. But, I like to manually sort the galleries to show the best images first and to sometimes put images in a sequence in the right order.
I'm also concerned about something I read in this thread. My personal family vacation galleries are all set to allow original full-size downloads. If I collect photos from those galleries and put them in my public art portfolio gallery, they inherit the property of allowing full-size downloads on those photos.
Thats a problem.
Also in a gallery with all collected images, what is then, the function of the LARGEST SIZE setting in the GALLERY SETTINGS?
I hope one of the options in the sorting vs. arranging, manual vs. automatic, once vs. continuously-updating realm for a virtual gallery will be to have an automatic, continuously-regenerating, RANDOMarrangement function.
In my opinion, some "best of best"/"all-time favorites of favorites"/"last year's favorites" galleries lend themselves to a randomized presentation (always "fresh" and unpredictable rather than boring & predictably repetitive...especially true for subsequent "visits" to a previously viewed gallery). I'd rather have a computer randomize the presentation order of 50 images than manually arrange them myself if the "order" is unimportant.
Please consider the above (and implement if you agree).
I'm also concerned about something I read in this thread. My personal family vacation galleries are all set to allow original full-size downloads. If I collect photos from those galleries and put them in my public art portfolio gallery, they inherit the property of allowing full-size downloads on those photos.
Thats a problem.
Also in a gallery with all collected images, what is then, the function of the LARGEST SIZE setting in the GALLERY SETTINGS?
This, along with manual sorting, present a possibly insurmountable technical problem. We have been bouncing ideas around for a long time and it's part of the reason that this feature didn't see the light of day earlier.
I'm sorry, but unless we can figure out a solution, the current functionality is far, far better than the alternative just due to those technical reasons.
Well my only gripe is that when you initiate a feature which will allow photosharing site wide by anyone, it should be set at Disabled by Defualt. Put it in our messages and, allow us to make the decision as to opt in, not have to go and opt out. Might seem minor to you but, some of us dont read our messages alot. The only reason I found out about this is from the Cafe.
Well my only gripe is that when you initiate a feature which will allow photosharing site wide by anyone, it should be set at Disabled by Defualt. Put it in our messages and, allow us to make the decision as to opt in, not have to go and opt out. Might seem minor to you but, some of us dont read our messages alot. The only reason I found out about this is from the Cafe.
This was also a hotly debated topic here. There are two main reasons we went the way we did:
First, that all rules in place were obeyed. Basically, if you had a site password, or gallery passwords, or external linking off, etc. we obeyed those and didn't allow external collection. If you had external links on, anybody could use extremely simple html to embed your photos anywhere on the Web with our without the feature. So from a privacy or security perspective, nothing really changed in our opinions.
Second, it seemed like most people with passwords off and external links on wouldn't mind other SmugMug customers being able to collect and view their photos in this manner. Though we have heard from some like you, the overwhelming response was that they love the feature and don't mind it being on. If the feature was off by default, we expected that very few of these people that "wouldn't mind" would have manually turned it on in their control panels, effectively killing the feature before it ever launched.
At first was I shocked to learn that others could collect my photos. But then thinking about it... it's fine. As long as your photos are watermarked, and largest size is not set to original, what's the harm? Heck you may even get a sell out of it, if you've priced the photo.
I suppose my workaround to the collections inheriting personal galleries with original sizes, is to just never allow original sizes in any of my galleries.
Well my only gripe is that when you initiate a feature which will allow photosharing site wide by anyone, it should be set at Disabled by Defualt. Put it in our messages and, allow us to make the decision as to opt in, not have to go and opt out. Might seem minor to you but, some of us dont read our messages alot. The only reason I found out about this is from the Cafe.
This was also a hotly debated topic here. There are two main reasons we went the way we did:
First, that all rules in place were obeyed. Basically, if you had a site password, or gallery passwords, or external linking off, etc. we obeyed those and didn't allow external collection. If you had external links on, anybody could use extremely simple html to embed your photos anywhere on the Web with our without the feature. So from a privacy or security perspective, nothing really changed in our opinions.
Second, it seemed like most people with passwords off and external links on wouldn't mind other SmugMug customers being able to collect and view their photos in this manner. Though we have heard from some like you, the overwhelming response was that they love the feature and don't mind it being on. If the feature was off by default, we expected that very few of these people that "wouldn't mind" would have manually turned it on in their control panels, effectively killing the feature before it ever launched.
Does that make sense?
As folks from Smugmug know, I tend to be a critic of weaknesses in Smugmug security or when the perception of a feature doesn't match the actual security it delivers. I don't usually pull any punches.
In this case, I think things are fine. As Sheaf says, things that were private before stay private, things that couldn't have been linked to before still can't be collected and things that were public before could have been collected before and now they can be collected in Smugmug's UI. And, if you don't want that added feature, you can easily turn it off site-wide or gallery-by-gallery.
It may be the case that folks didn't realize that their public images could have been collected before by any web-site and now they realize it, but that's more of a lack of understanding of the situation before than it is an indictment of the new feature. Perhaps the presence of this new feature is making people more aware of their own gallery settings so they get them the way they really want them.
Well my only gripe is that when you initiate a feature which will allow photosharing site wide by anyone, it should be set at Disabled by Defualt. Put it in our messages and, allow us to make the decision as to opt in, not have to go and opt out. Might seem minor to you but, some of us dont read our messages alot. The only reason I found out about this is from the Cafe.
Same here.
In fact, I wish all new features would be disabled by default, just like new products.
Give me a chance to try it out and decide if I want it incorporated into my site.
Well in that case this feature is just about useless for me
At least on Exposure Manager it is open to anyone that enters an email address.
If you read between the lines of what Smugmug is saying, it sounds like this is step #1 and eventually non-Smugmug customers will be able to make collections too. It is a logical extension of the feature so I'd be very surprised if it hasn't already been thought about some.
This was also a hotly debated topic here. There are two main reasons we went the way we did:
First, that all rules in place were obeyed. Basically, if you had a site password, or gallery passwords, or external linking off, etc. we obeyed those and didn't allow external collection. If you had external links on, anybody could use extremely simple html to embed your photos anywhere on the Web with our without the feature. So from a privacy or security perspective, nothing really changed in our opinions.
Second, it seemed like most people with passwords off and external links on wouldn't mind other SmugMug customers being able to collect and view their photos in this manner. Though we have heard from some like you, the overwhelming response was that they love the feature and don't mind it being on. If the feature was off by default, we expected that very few of these people that "wouldn't mind" would have manually turned it on in their control panels, effectively killing the feature before it ever launched.
Does that make sense?
No the point is I should still have to opt in and not have it set that Im in by default. That is my point espesoally since it allows for use outside of my site. The Share button needs to be tweaked as well so Im the only one able to use it but, as it stands if I disable it even I cant use it. Unless you have changed that and I havent tried it lately.
If you read between the lines of what Smugmug is saying, it sounds like this is step #1 and eventually non-Smugmug customers will be able to make collections too. It is a logical extension of the feature so I'd be very surprised if it hasn't already been thought about some.
Then it would be a useful feature for me, but how long would I have to wait
That is my point espesoally since it allows for use outside of my site.
Your other settings already allow for use outside your site. This doesn't break any site security you have in place. None of it.
I guess I still don't understand the confusion. If you allow external linking and have no password restrictions, I can embed your photo on my blog, use it as a web graphic for my site, and post it here on this forum. And that's all without attributing the photo to you at all. But because it can appear, with your name and a link to your gallery, in another SmugMug gallery, we have somehow violated your privacy and security?
The Share button needs to be tweaked as well so Im the only one able to use it but, as it stands if I disable it even I cant use it. Unless you have changed that and I havent tried it lately.
If you turn on Easy Sharing, then you can add this CSS to hide the share button only for everyone but you when you're logged in:
Your other settings already allow for use outside your site. This doesn't break any site security you have in place. None of it.
I guess I still don't understand the confusion. If you allow external linking and have no password restrictions, I can embed your photo on my blog, use it as a web graphic for my site, and post it here on this forum. And that's all without attributing the photo to you at all. But because it can appear, with your name and a link to your gallery, in another SmugMug gallery, we have somehow violated your privacy and security?
It doesn't bother me personally, but for political reasons off might have been better, even if there's no technical reason.
This, along with manual sorting, present a possibly insurmountable technical problem. We have been bouncing ideas around for a long time and it's part of the reason that this feature didn't see the light of day earlier.
I'm sorry, but unless we can figure out a solution, the current functionality is far, far better than the alternative just due to those technical reasons.
May I humbly suggest that the best solution to this limitation is a "Copy to X gallery" feature. Then the copy would be a brand new file, and could easily be managed within its new gallery. Having to copy a picture, then figure out which one is the new copy, and then moving to a gallery is archaic, and a "Copy to X gallery" feature would kill 3 birds with one stone.
May I humbly suggest that the best solution to this limitation is a "Copy to X gallery" feature. Then the copy would be a brand new file, and could easily be managed within its new gallery. Having to copy a picture, then figure out which one is the new copy, and then moving to a gallery is archaic, and a "Copy to X gallery" feature would kill 3 birds with one stone.
Yes, and you could add a 4th bird by permitting copy to X for multiple pics.
Comments
Maybe I’m not understanding this new feature, but here’s my two cents: Regarding the new “collectable” feature, I really wish you had left the default to “OFF”. I have had several photos of mine stolen and used on internet ads without my permission (not from SM), so I am very careful about allowing links. I have been testing this new feature on SM, and find these problems:
1. I have turned off “collectable”. Then in individual galleries, I turned off “external links.”
2. When I go to “visitors’ view”, I can still click on share, and send an e-mail with the photo! So even though someone cannot “collect” my photo or copy a link, they can still steal it by simply e-mailing it to themselves.
3. If you click on “be social”, you can link it to a Twitter account. I don’t want ANY links.
4. If I go to “share”, even though “external links” is turned off, people can still click on “feed links” and copy them.
5. If I look at a photo, then click on the largest size, if I right-click it says it is copy-protected, as it should, but now after clicking “OK”, it immediately changes to the regular menu (copy link, save as, etc.) It never did that before. It just gave the copyright notice.
THIS IS ALL WHEN IN “VISITORS VIEW”.
I know lots of people are happy about this feature, but I am not one of them. If, at least, it was turned OFF by default, it wouldn’t be so bad, but now everyone has to go through all of their galleries and reconfigure everything.
Sorry to be negative, but it seems like you’re making things easier for visitors, but more difficult for members.
Jean Chang Photography
www.jeanachang.blogspot.com
If you don't want people to be able to link to your images, then turn off External Linking in your gallery settings.
Right-click protection is barely protection at all (it takes seconds to bypass). But, even when a user gets the right click menu on a right-click protected images (as you saw), if they try to right-click save it, they will just end up with a blank 1x1 px image.
You can turn off the ability to collect at the account level in the control panel.
If you need any other help disabling these sharing features, just ask a specific question. They can all be turned off. Remember, what you want for a site-wide default is likely very different from what someone else wants who is sharing family pictures. You just have to set it the way you want it. There is no single set of defaults that would work right for everyone.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
A lot of the things you mentioned are a completely different feature that we've had for a long time, Easy Sharing. You can disable that button from your gallery settings with a click and that should take care of many of your issues. In addition, you can always disable collecting and RSS feeds from your Control Panel > Settings > Site-wide feature.
If you still have concerns or questions about security, just let us know.
Photos that don't suck / 365 / Film & Lomography
I feel silly having spent time getting all my "Best of " shots in one gallery, having the order random and not being able to put them in any sensible arrangement,eg drag around,sort by alpha(caption)
Have gotten conflicting info from this thread.....to clarify,
is it a) a problem being worked on
b) something that's coming in the next release
c) not possible in virtual galleries
tx
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
The only bug I currently see is that "Exlcude" instead of "Exclude" text in the button for the rules when you edit them in gallery settings (it was corrected in the dialog where you first create the rules but not in the edit dialog).
cheers,
Nick.
Nick.
my equipment: Canon 5D2, 7D, full list here
my Smugmug site: here
Do want to be a complainer, but manually arranging is a basic function that I use in just about every gallery.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Sorry, but I can't help myself and must write this:
Sorting virtual galleries works just fine. Open the gallery, go to the Tools button and select "gallery settings". There you can define the sort order and it just works.
What you want to do is "arranging", which isn't sorting because you want to put them in an order which, for the computer, looks like a random order. You don't sort on alphabet, description, date taken or anything like that. Instead, you are defining an order based on your artistic skills.
I write this because I detect a lot of confusion in this thread about these terms (many report that they read "conflicting info" about it). I know that most photographers aren't computer geeks but if we all understand and use these terms correctly, there would not be any confusion about them. Photographers love their own terms (camera geeks really) like stopped down, glass, wide open etc. so it should not be a problem to add these two computer-related terms ;-)
What I don't understand is the term that SM came up with: "Auto sort". Yes it is automatic but it always is automatic on a computer, i.e. there is no manual sorting on computers. I think they came up with it to try and make clear the difference between sorting and arranging but I'm afraid it only adds to the confusion. As a retired software designer I would propose to rename that into "Gallery sort order" or just "Sort order" because it's clear it is for the gallery and rename "None" to "None (arrange manually)".
ciao!
Nick.
Nick.
my equipment: Canon 5D2, 7D, full list here
my Smugmug site: here
Auto-sort is "continual sort" as in the gallery is always automatically sorted.
There are two other arrange functions. One is "one-time sort" which is in Tools/Many Photos/Arrange/Sort where the images are sorted once and then the order stays fixed after that. In fact, you can do a one-time sort as an initial order and then manually move things around. Since it's not continual sort, it won't constantly resort when you add new images or manually move things around.
Then, there's manual positioning where (if auto-sort is off), you can manually move things around into any order you wish. This is the one that is not available in virtual galleries.
Users are regularly confused about these three. I don't think Smugmug does a particularly good job of making them easy to understand in the UI or in switching between them (auto-sort often conflicts with the other two).
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
Manually arranging a gallery that is built dynamically, doesn't make much sense to me. Maybe there should be a concept of a snapshot (pun?) gallery. In other words, build it dynamically once, but needing to be manually refreshed for it to change. I can see having an arrange feature for something like that.
Here's a more concrete example. I've got a sub-category full of 20 galleries for a sports season. The images are all keyworded by player, by game and by rating. They are up and not changing. I'd like to offer virtual galleries that let people view the entire season by player, by game and a highlights gallery of the top rated photos. But, I like to manually sort the galleries to show the best images first and to sometimes put images in a sequence in the right order.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
Thats a problem.
Also in a gallery with all collected images, what is then, the function of the LARGEST SIZE setting in the GALLERY SETTINGS?
I hope one of the options in the sorting vs. arranging, manual vs. automatic, once vs. continuously-updating realm for a virtual gallery will be to have an automatic, continuously-regenerating, RANDOM arrangement function.
In my opinion, some "best of best"/"all-time favorites of favorites"/"last year's favorites" galleries lend themselves to a randomized presentation (always "fresh" and unpredictable rather than boring & predictably repetitive...especially true for subsequent "visits" to a previously viewed gallery). I'd rather have a computer randomize the presentation order of 50 images than manually arrange them myself if the "order" is unimportant.
Please consider the above (and implement if you agree).
This, along with manual sorting, present a possibly insurmountable technical problem. We have been bouncing ideas around for a long time and it's part of the reason that this feature didn't see the light of day earlier.
I'm sorry, but unless we can figure out a solution, the current functionality is far, far better than the alternative just due to those technical reasons.
http://joves.smugmug.com/
This was also a hotly debated topic here. There are two main reasons we went the way we did:
First, that all rules in place were obeyed. Basically, if you had a site password, or gallery passwords, or external linking off, etc. we obeyed those and didn't allow external collection. If you had external links on, anybody could use extremely simple html to embed your photos anywhere on the Web with our without the feature. So from a privacy or security perspective, nothing really changed in our opinions.
Second, it seemed like most people with passwords off and external links on wouldn't mind other SmugMug customers being able to collect and view their photos in this manner. Though we have heard from some like you, the overwhelming response was that they love the feature and don't mind it being on. If the feature was off by default, we expected that very few of these people that "wouldn't mind" would have manually turned it on in their control panels, effectively killing the feature before it ever launched.
Does that make sense?
I suppose my workaround to the collections inheriting personal galleries with original sizes, is to just never allow original sizes in any of my galleries.
In this case, I think things are fine. As Sheaf says, things that were private before stay private, things that couldn't have been linked to before still can't be collected and things that were public before could have been collected before and now they can be collected in Smugmug's UI. And, if you don't want that added feature, you can easily turn it off site-wide or gallery-by-gallery.
It may be the case that folks didn't realize that their public images could have been collected before by any web-site and now they realize it, but that's more of a lack of understanding of the situation before than it is an indictment of the new feature. Perhaps the presence of this new feature is making people more aware of their own gallery settings so they get them the way they really want them.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
Same here.
In fact, I wish all new features would be disabled by default, just like new products.
Give me a chance to try it out and decide if I want it incorporated into my site.
At least on Exposure Manager it is open to anyone that enters an email address.
http://www.realphotoman.com/
Work in progress
http://www.realphotoman.net/ Zenfolio 10% off Referral Code: 1KH-5HX-5HU
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
http://joves.smugmug.com/
http://www.realphotoman.com/
Work in progress
http://www.realphotoman.net/ Zenfolio 10% off Referral Code: 1KH-5HX-5HU
Your other settings already allow for use outside your site. This doesn't break any site security you have in place. None of it.
I guess I still don't understand the confusion. If you allow external linking and have no password restrictions, I can embed your photo on my blog, use it as a web graphic for my site, and post it here on this forum. And that's all without attributing the photo to you at all. But because it can appear, with your name and a link to your gallery, in another SmugMug gallery, we have somehow violated your privacy and security?
.notLoggedIn #shareButton {display:none;}
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
It doesn't bother me personally, but for political reasons off might have been better, even if there's no technical reason.
Yes, and you could add a 4th bird by permitting copy to X for multiple pics.