Facebook Quickshare issue

mtnbiker · August 20, 2010

I like the new facebook quickshare feature but I noticed something strange

If I "like" a photo in a keyword feed, for instance
this one in the feed "favorite"
http://www.jonpratt.com/keyword/favorite#975199203_N5P6Y

The like feature is applied to all photos with the keyword "favorite", and the actual photo in its original gallery is not "liked"

http://www.jonpratt.com/2010/Townsend-and-Duff-0818/13399012_oJ7An#975199203_N5P6Y

Seems to me the like feature should only pertain to the individual photo, not the keyword feed or gallery, and should be across the entire site.
It definitely should be a consistent feature, where liking something on one page, is the same as liking something on another...which it is not if this is the default behavior.

jfriend · August 20, 2010

If that's indeed the case, it sounds like a bug to me. You might want to post this in the bug reporting forum to make sure it gets seen by the folks who deal with bugs.

RonD200 · August 20, 2010

I think I found another bug with the Facebook Quickshare, when I click on the Like button on one of my photos it posts the following links on Facebook, the first part of the link Wing Walker from Cleveland Airshow links to my gallery which is great, however the second part of the link doesn't take people to my home page, it links to Smugmug's home page instead even though the link is the address of my homepage??? If I hover over the link to my homepage on facebook it shows up on the status bar as the link to smugmug's homepage. You can see this for yourself by hovering over the address to my site in the link below and looking at the status bar.

Ron likes Wing Walker from Cleveland Air Show 2009 on http://ronskinner.smugmug.com.

docwalker · August 21, 2010

Hi Ron,

Thanks for pointing these out. I have bugged both of these to the programmer. Thanks. --Doc

Joves · August 22, 2010

What I want to know is how do I eliminate them from my galleries, yet I am still able to post my images on forums. Also the easy share button should have an owner use only option and a choice to kill it in public. This is a matter of security. I personally want to eliminate the FB/Tweet from my gallery but, still use my photos as I choose. Everytime one of these sharing features are added we lose more security options.

jfriend · August 22, 2010

Joves wrote: »

What I want to know is how do I eliminate them from my galleries, yet I am still able to post my images on forums. Also the easy share button should have an owner use only option and a choice to kill it in public. This is a matter of security. I personally want to eliminate the FB/Tweet from my gallery but, still use my photos as I choose. Everytime one of these sharing features are added we lose more security options.

You can hide any of this for your viewers, but keep it when logged in if you want to keep access to it yourself. Just add this CSS:

.notLoggedIn #shareButton, .notLoggedIn #quickShare {display: none;}

brecklundin · August 23, 2010

Joves wrote: »

What I want to know is how do I eliminate them from my galleries, yet I am still able to post my images on forums. Also the easy share button should have an owner use only option and a choice to kill it in public. This is a matter of security. I personally want to eliminate the FB/Tweet from my gallery but, still use my photos as I choose. Everytime one of these sharing features are added we lose more security options.

As one of those people who absolutely does not see the value or purpose of these fad-like "social networking" sites, could you describe what security one is losing by tagging an image as a fav for say Facebook?

I already know about the IP they figure they can steal, we'll see once that goes to court some day...I don't see how, even with that in their UA/EULA that it's legal because the user is not being compensated for the value of the IP being usurped...anyway, it's no images from me on FB anymore now that I have read that portion of their EULA completely.

Still, I don't understand the security problems of a link back to your site. Since you specifically indicate sites like FB as well as services like twatter I assume you feel posting your photo's elsewhere in larger than thumbnail sizes don't represent the same security issue. So I am curious as I want to tread as cautiously as possible myself.

brecklundin · August 23, 2010

I just found a way to completely eliminate the Twitter and Facebook buttons if you want...without touching sharing...add this code to the top of your "Top Javascript" section:

[html]// disable/enable FB or Twatter buttons, over-ride system defaults

SM.quickShare = {
'facebook': false,
'twitter': false,
'disable': true };
[/html]

jfriend · August 23, 2010

brecklundin wrote: »

As one of those people who absolutely does not see the value or purpose of these fad-like "social networking" sites, could you describe what security one is losing by tagging an image as a fav for say Facebook?

I already know about the IP they figure they can steal, we'll see once that goes to court some day...I don't see how, even with that in their UA/EULA that it's legal because the user is not being compensated for the value of the IP being usurped...anyway, it's no images from me on FB anymore now that I have read that portion of their EULA completely.

Still, I don't understand the security problems of a link back to your site. Since you specifically indicate sites like FB as well as services like twatter I assume you feel posting your photo's elsewhere in larger than thumbnail sizes don't represent the same security issue. So I am curious as I want to tread as cautiously as possible myself.

I think it's pretty simple really. If you want people to link to your site and you want those links to bring other people to your site, then both FB and Twitter are ways to do that whether you use them or not (zillions of other people do). Anyone who wants to be found on Google should probably want to be found on Twitter or FB too as they are just different ways of letting people find you or know about you or learn about you from other people they know.

The point of FB like is for people who like your images to tell other people that they share with that they like your images. The point of the Twitter button is so that people on Twitter can tell other people who follow them on Twitter about something they like. If you want people who like your site to use word-of-mouth (or word of FB or Twitter in this case) to share your site with others, you want FB and Twitter links.

On the other hand, if you don't want Google to know about you and don't want people to find your site other than a small group of people that you explicitly tell about your site and you don't want your friends/family/clients to tell others about your site, then you won't want FB or Twitter buttons.

These buttons are NOT a security issue. They don't let anyone in to your site that isn't otherwise allowed in. They don't let anyone take anything that they can't otherwise take. All they do is allow people to tell other people about your site. It's that simple. Whether you use FB or Twitter or not, if you want people to tell others about your site, then you want these buttons.

Facebook has turned into a lot more than a fad. It is a new way of communicating with a select group of people that you choose. Facebook itself could fail to execute properly and be replaced by some other company (though that's unlikely), but this general type of communication is likely to be here for a long time because it clearly solves a need for a lot of people. To think of it as a fad shows a lack of understanding of what people are using it for and why it's so popular. If you run a business that benefits the more it gets known, to ignore FB is a significant missed opportunity.

brecklundin · August 23, 2010

jfriend wrote: »

I think it's pretty simple really. If you want people to link to your site and you want those links to bring other people to your site, then both FB and Twitter are ways to do that whether you use them or not (zillions of other people do). Anyone who wants to be found on Google should probably want to be found on Twitter or FB too as they are just different ways of letting people find you or know about you or learn about you from other people they know.

The point of FB like is for people who like your images to tell other people that they share with that they like your images. The point of the Twitter button is so that people on Twitter can tell other people who follow them on Twitter about something they like. If you want people who like your site to use word-of-mouth (or word of FB or Twitter in this case) to share your site with others, you want FB and Twitter links.

On the other hand, if you don't want Google to know about you and don't want people to find your site other than a small group of people that you explicitly tell about your site and you don't want your friends/family/clients to tell others about your site, then you won't want FB or Twitter buttons.

These buttons are NOT a security issue. They don't let anyone in to your site that isn't otherwise allowed in. They don't let anyone take anything that they can't otherwise take. All they do is allow people to tell other people about your site. It's that simple. Whether you use FB or Twitter or not, if you want people to tell others about your site, then you want these buttons.

Thanks, I do not see how it could be a security risk either but was asking the previous poster quoted in my comment why that person thinks them a security risk as I do not assume to know all there is to know about them from a security standpoint.

Facebook has turned into a lot more than a fad. It is a new way of communicating with a select group of people that you choose. Facebook itself could fail to execute properly and be replaced by some other company (though that's unlikely), but this general type of communication is likely to be here for a long time because it clearly solves a need for a lot of people.[/quote]

I find that a debatable matter of opinion, though I do understand what you are attempting to describe and thank you for that attempt. Distilled down from your attempted description I get that FB is a viral marketing channel nothing more. You can fluff it up as much as ya want but that is all it is. Out of work "marking-wonks or business majors" must love it.

I find it's functionality confusing for the most part and, that, is an embarrassment...hehehehe...I have tried and really find it more of a nuisance than anything else. My friends and I stay in touch via far more private and reliable means, I don't have the time or patience for games and other distractions and find the deluge of ads in the "News" section completely off-putting. But what you are saying is it is a self contained viral market place. That is the purpose as FB exists today.

To think of it as a fad shows a lack of understanding of what people are using it for and why it's so popular. If you run a business that benefits the more it gets known, to ignore FB is a significant missed opportunity.

First off fad status remains to be seen but it does seem to attract a wide demographic but one wonders if those with the most active presence are part of the 15%-20% unemployed in the US today...that group is hardly the demographic I need for my work and products.

But more significantly your somewhat insulting comment that my mere asking the question shows ignorance or lack of understanding...fer gawds sakes dude that is WHY PEOPLE ASK QUESTIONS.

I sure hope that was an unintentional and an example of humor not coming across on a message board and I'll take it as a "...ya dumbarse!!...this is what it's for...what the heck are you thinking!!! {followed by a smack on the back of the head!!)...."

hehehehe....

I doubt FB is going away anytime soon, but at the same time I question if it is of any benefit for anyone who does not actively engage with others on the site. Every business is different and even though the FB setup would seem to potentially offer targeted marketing, I am not sold it will work for all business types. You need to be active on the site to create this...and when you are a one-man shop with health probs limiting what you can get done each day I Because w/o a critical mass of "friends" (simply a spin doctor/marketing-wonk term for contacts to improve that warm and fuzzy "user experience") your content won't spread as one might expect from your description. This is where I find it problematic...I am just not that interested with interacting with people out there online for some reason, though I have actually made some wonderful friends that way. I know this sounds contradictory but that's how I find the site. I am not saying it's bad but rather it's obtrusive to my work and business day. And again, I see your point as a marketing tool. thanks for the time explaining it, it's basically what I understood the site to be, but I felt I was missing something...apparently not.

Thanks for your effort to help in my understanding...

jfriend · August 23, 2010

brecklundin wrote: »

I find that a debatable matter of opinion, though I do understand what you are attempting to describe and thank you for that attempt. Distilled down from your attempted description I get that FB is a viral marketing channel nothing more. You can fluff it up as much as ya want but that is all it is. Out of work "marking-wonks or business majors" must love it.

I find it's functionality confusing for the most part and, that, is an embarrassment...hehehehe...I have tried and really find it more of a nuisance than anything else. My friends and I stay in touch via far more private and reliable means, I don't have the time or patience for games and other distractions and find the deluge of ads in the "News" section completely off-putting. But what you are saying is it is a self contained viral market place. That is the purpose as FB exists today.

...

I doubt FB is going away anytime soon, but at the same time I question if it is of any benefit for anyone who does not actively engage with others on the site.

Facebook is a communication tool. It's main use is for groups of people to communicate with each other on the web in a way that restricts the communication to only those whom you've declared a "friend". I use it to share with and hear about the activities of family and friends. When I have a new Smugmug gallery, I share it there and that's where my friends and family learn about it. Because my friends and family have access to the Like button in my galleries, they can press it when they see something they like and their friends and family (which will include people beyond my circle) will see a notification that they've "Liked" a photo or gallery. It's just a communication tool. If you're in a business and want more customers, I can see no reason why you wouldn't want people to be able to share with their friends that they like your site.

Now, there are different ways that companies can use FB in a pure commercial or marketing fashion, but you don't have to do any of that in order to benefit from simple word-of-mouth communication that FB enables.

If you think the main purpose of FB is a viral marketplace, I think you're missing how most people use it. Some may be trying to use it that way, but that's not how it started and that's not how any of the people I know on FB use it. They use it as a communication tool that works better than email or texting or IM or general web sites or calling for the kinds of things we put on FB. Most of the people I communicate with on FB have jobs and significant disposable income, so it's certainly not only for unemployed folks.

FB can be a benefit to you without you having any presence on it. Think of it like this. Let's say you don't drive and you don't know how to navigate through the city. If I handed you a street address, you'd have no idea how to get there. But, your business has a street address. So, even though you have no idea how to use a street address, lots of your potential customers do. So, are you better off making it easy for people to find your business' street address or not? Of course you are. In fact, you could even benefit if you had a stack of business cards with your address on it and made it easy for your happy customers to pass one of these cards to your friends. You will have more business if you make it easy for people to find your street address and to share it with others who might be interested in your business. You could decide to hide the street address because it's of no use to you personally, but that would harm, not help your business.

Making it easy for your viewers to share your site with their friends/family just allows them to spread the good word about you more easily whether they specifically intend to or not. Blocking that functionality just limits them to other means and cuts off the possibility that they might introduce your business to some new potential customers via FB. Mind you, they aren't doing it for the purposes of promoting your business. They are just communicating with their friends what they like and that communication has the potential benefit to you of bringing in new customers. Why would anyone in business to get new customers want to block that?

You don't have to do ANYTHING other than allow the FB Like button to be on your pages. You don't have to "market" yourself on FB. You don't even have to have a FB account to benefit. If ANY of your viewers use FB to communicate with their friends/family (even one), it could help you.

I didn't mean to offend you in any way, but I think the notion that FB is just a commercial marketing fad is so far off base that I thought a lot more explanation was needed. It's a communication tool that millions of people everyday are using. It's growing so fast because for a lot of types of communication, it works better than what we've traditionally used in the past. You don't have to be on FB if you don't want to. But, it's my opinion that blocking people from being able to easily tell their FB friends that they like something on your site isn't a smart business decision.

jfriend · August 23, 2010

brecklundin wrote: »

I just found a way to completely eliminate the Twitter and Facebook buttons if you want...without touching sharing...add this code to the top of your "Top Javascript" section:

[html]// disable/enable FB or Twatter buttons, over-ride system defaults

SM.quickShare = {
'facebook': false,
'twitter': false,
'disable': true };
[/html]

No need to do this. There's a quick share setting right in your control panel. Just turn it off globally there if you don't want it.

MOD EDIT (Andy): Control Panel, Settings tab

brecklundin · August 23, 2010

jfriend wrote: »

Facebook is a communication tool. It's main use is for groups of people to communicate with each other on the web in a way that restricts the communication to only those whom you've declared a "friend". I use it to share with and hear about the activities of family and friends. When I have a new Smugmug gallery, I share it there and that's where my friends and family learn about it. Because my friends and family have access to the Like button in my galleries, they can press it when they see something they like and their friends and family (which will include people beyond my circle) will see a notification that they've "Liked" a photo or gallery. It's just a communication tool. If you're in a business and want more customers, I can see no reason why you wouldn't want people to be able to share with their friends that they like your site.
.
.
{snip}
.
.
.
I didn't mean to offend you in any way, but I think the notion that FB is just a commercial marketing fad is so far off base that I thought a lot more explanation was needed. It's a communication tool that millions of people everyday are using. It's growing so fast because for a lot of types of communication, it works better than what we've traditionally used in the past. You don't have to be on FB if you don't want to. But, it's my opinion that blocking people from being able to easily tell their FB friends that they like something on your site isn't a smart business decision.

John,

Thanks a lot for the really detailed take on the FB use and potential. Really it was very helpful and gives me more interest in using the venue as a tool, especially as I was sensing one needs to be active on the site when the reality is it's a totally passive tool from the my POV. Now that works for me...put the "like" links on the images and other content pages and let it all happen. It will, it won't, it will be fast or slow...but it's free and that cannot be bad at all, thanks a bunch. Now I just need to work on the SEO on my pages, a thing I had down, about 1995 or so but today, not so much...hehehehe....

And thanks for taking my asking about the tone of the one comment. i figured it was me just being worn out and somewhat impatient these days and totally out of character for you so I thought I would ask...glad I did!!

jfriend wrote: »

No need to do this. There's a quick share setting right in your control panel. Just turn it off globally there if you don't want it.

MOD EDIT (Andy): Control Panel, Settings tab

Ok, yeah, that is there but is there a granularity benefit to control it programmatically or are the button/icons all-or-nothing? Meaning can you decide programmatically choose which appear and which, obviously do not...and forgive my somewhat disjointed reasoning on this as these days I am less than 100%....actually about 50% of normal so I am slower in grasping ideas and it feels very weird to be on that end of the scale.

Oh, I ask as I simply am kinda worn out and did not run the simple test to find out.

Thanks to ya both...

EDIT: Ok, tested and I saw the answer before even testing...it's an all or none and those settings are just the default values for the buttons, yes? And the DISABLE value is for the whole object. It would be nice to have the different options so they can be controlled individually. I always worry what these 3rd party sites to for load speed. We've all run into a page where some 3rd party site simply would not complete so the whole page would never fully load or was glacially slow in loading or execution/navigation. I see it seriously on eBay that has become so polluted with 3rd party services and ad.metrics sties as to often run into pages that won't load in any borwser because one of these sites is down...or their .js pages have changed resulting in conflicts within the page.

You guys know, it's hard enough to track down page load issues with everyone and their cousin having their idea of CSS or .js conventions. And if one of those services has server probs then *poof* goes my page even though I did nothing to cause the issue. Amazon has gotten even worse of late. Way too much overhead.

jfriend · August 23, 2010

brecklundin wrote: »

And thanks for taking my asking about the tone of the one comment. i figured it was me just being worn out and somewhat impatient these days and totally out of character for you so I thought I would ask...glad I did!!

Ok, yeah, that is there but is there a granularity benefit to control it programmatically or are the button/icons all-or-nothing? Meaning can you decide programmatically choose which appear and which, obviously do not...and forgive my somewhat disjointed reasoning on this as these days I am less than 100%....actually about 50% of normal so I am slower in grasping ideas and it feels very weird to be on that end of the scale.

If you leave it on globally, you can control it per gallery with the Easy Sharing per-gallery setting. The buttons can also be hidden per gallery using CSS if there's some reason you want Easy Sharing on, but FB button off.

ynot44444 · July 5, 2011

Turning the share button off and leaving the FB & Twitter buttons up?

jfriend wrote: »

No need to do this. There's a quick share setting right in your control panel. Just turn it off globally there if you don't want it.

MOD EDIT (Andy): Control Panel, Settings tab

Hey guys...I like the FB & twitter buttons below my images but don't like the share button because the link it gives your customers is right clickable and images can be stolen very easy. Is there a way of leaving the FB & Twitter buttons below the image and removing the share button entirely? When you turn off the share button in the control panel it also turns off the FB & Twitter buttons under the images.
Thanks in advance!

ynot44444 · July 5, 2011

ynot44444 wrote: »

Hey guys...I like the FB & twitter buttons below my images but don't like the share button because the link it gives your customers is right clickable and images can be stolen very easy. Is there a way of leaving the FB & Twitter buttons below the image and removing the share button entirely? When you turn off the share button in the control panel it also turns off the FB & Twitter buttons under the images.
Thanks in advance!

I figured it out...

.notLoggedIn #shareButton {display:none;}

Facebook Quickshare issue

Comments