Owner view/ visitor view problem

Dave17

I have always used "dga17.smugmug.com" for for the URL for my Smugmug site. I few weeks ago I used the Smugmug/Go Daddy connection to register "www.davearnoldphotography.com". Everything worked well execpt for the following.

On the main page I am in "Owner View". I navigate to a gallery and I am randomly switched into "visitor view". When this happens I navigate back to my main page and try again. After two or three attempts I am able to successfully navigate the gallery in "Owner View". This occurs totally at random. It is not particular to a specific gallery. Today it took me five attempts before I could get into a gallery so that I could add pictures.

I had correspondence with the Smugmug help desk for this problem and was told it was a "browser/cookies" problem. Was told to delete the cookies - that this was not a Smumug problem. I have deleted cookies, emptied cache, logged in and out of Smugmug - the problem still persists.

Can anyone help me with this? I do not know what else to do to fix this if it is in fact a browser/cookies problem. I am using a MacBook Pro with OS10.6.4 and Safari 5.0.2.

Thanks,

--David

Andy

What are your site cookies set to in Safari Preferences?

Dave17

Andy wrote: »

What are your site cookies set to in Safari Preferences?

Not sure if I know what you mean. Under "Accept cookies" "Only from sites I visit - Block cookies from third parties"

or
are you talking about the entries in "Show Cookies"?

--Dave

Andy

Make sure you enable 3rd party cookies. That will do it

Dave17

Andy wrote: »

Make sure you enable 3rd party cookies. That will do it

Sorry but no luck. Accept cookies set to "Always" (but I don't like this option) Deleted all cookies again. This had the effect of logging me out of Smugmug. Logged in and was taken to my home page (showed www.davearnoldphotography.com as the url) but screen looked like I had never logged in. Went back to www.smugmug.com which showed me as logged in. Hit "Smugmug" on my safari toolbar (url dga17.smugmug.com) and was taken to my home page where is was in "owner view".

Any other ideas?

Thanks,

--Dave

Andy

Aha, change your bookmark in Safari to http://www.davearnoldphotography.com

Dave17

Andy wrote: »

Aha, change your bookmark in Safari to http://www.davearnoldphotography.com

Still having the same problem. Deleted cookies again. Only using www.davearnoldphotography.com www.smugmug.com shows me as logged in. Goto www.davearnoldphotography.com and screen treats me like a visitor. I reload the page a number of times and finally I am in owner view.

Any other ideas?

Thanks,

--Dave

Andy

Dave17 wrote: »

Still having the same problem. Deleted cookies again. Only using www.davearnoldphotography.com www.smugmug.com shows me as logged in. Goto www.davearnoldphotography.com and screen treats me like a visitor. I reload the page a number of times and finally I am in owner view.

Any other ideas?

Thanks,

--Dave

You should only need to refresh one time when you are on your custom domain after logging in - to set the cookie. Are you running any sort of cookie blasting code?

SamirD

Have you tried another computer/browser? Visitor view/owner view is all cookie related. But it also works inconsistently, so that's probably part of the issue as well.

Andy

SamirD wrote: »

Have you tried another computer/browser? Visitor view/owner view is all cookie related. But it also works inconsistently, so that's probably part of the issue as well.

Once you set your cookie it works quite well. But things like cookie blasting software, or higher than default security settings can thwart it.

SamirD

Andy wrote: »

Once you set your cookie it works quite well. But things like cookie blasting software, or higher than default security settings can thwart it.

Has this been changed? I remember you recommending to use two browsers versus visitor view a while back. I stopped using visitor view because I had problems with it and this was the only solution being presented.

Andy

SamirD wrote: »

Has this been changed? I remember you recommending to use two browsers versus visitor view a while back. I stopped using visitor view because I had problems with it and this was the only solution being presented.

Yes, to you I recommended that because you are techy. Two browsers is WAY better, but many don't grok that so that's why we built visitor view.

Dave17

SamirD wrote: »

Have you tried another computer/browser? Visitor view/owner view is all cookie related. But it also works inconsistently, so that's probably part of the issue as well.

FYI when I say "visitor view" the screen is presented as if i am just a guest. There is no smugmug "owner view" at the top of the screen to press.

FYI - No "cooking blasting code"

Okay, did the following on "two different computers". Both acted the same way.

1) Deleted cache
2) Deleted all cookies
3) went to www.smugmug.com
4) logged in to smugmug and checked the "remember me" check box
5) after login I was redirected to my home page
6) there were no smugmug user menus visable (upload, tools etc) Screen looked like I was not logged in
7) refreshed the page
8) page redisplays this time with the smugmug user menus (upload, tools, etc)
9) Everything looks good
10) Close safari
11) re-open safari
12) go to www.davearnoldphotography.com
13) home page displays no smugmug menus (upload, tool etc) Screen looked like I was not logged in
14) refresh the page numerous time - no change
15) go to www.smugmug.com
16) top right offers the option to "logout" there fore I assume I am logged in
17) hit "My Homepage"
18) home page displays no smugmug menus (upload, tool etc) Screen looked like I was not logged in
19) hit refresh once
20) page redisplays this time with the smugmug user menus (upload, tools, etc)

It is losing track that "www.davearnoldphotography" is the user that is logged in and have the owner permissions. Go to www.smugmug.com login screen seems to remind who the user is but only after hitting refresh on the home page.

Sometimes when I navigate to a sub-category the screen displays without the smugmug user menus and then after going back to the home page and trying again the user menus appear.

Thanks,

--Dave

gluwater

Dave17 wrote: »

FYI when I say "visitor view" the screen is presented as if i am just a guest. There is no smugmug "owner view" at the top of the screen to press.

FYI - No "cooking blasting code"

Okay, did the following on "two different computers". Both acted the same way.

1) Deleted cache
2) Deleted all cookies
3) went to www.smugmug.com
4) logged in to smugmug and checked the "remember me" check box
5) after login I was redirected to my home page
6) there were no smugmug user menus visable (upload, tools etc) Screen looked like I was not logged in
7) refreshed the page
8) page redisplays this time with the smugmug user menus (upload, tools, etc)
9) Everything looks good
10) Close safari
11) re-open safari
12) go to www.davearnoldphotography.com
13) home page displays no smugmug menus (upload, tool etc) Screen looked like I was not logged in
14) refresh the page numerous time - no change
15) go to www.smugmug.com
16) top right offers the option to "logout" there fore I assume I am logged in
17) hit "My Homepage"
18) home page displays no smugmug menus (upload, tool etc) Screen looked like I was not logged in
19) hit refresh once
20) page redisplays this time with the smugmug user menus (upload, tools, etc)

It is losing track that "www.davearnoldphotography" is the user that is logged in and have the owner permissions. Go to www.smugmug.com login screen seems to remind who the user is but only after hitting refresh on the home page.

Sometimes when I navigate to a sub-category the screen displays without the smugmug user menus and then after going back to the home page and trying again the user menus appear.

Thanks,

--Dave

Hi Dave I tried to reproduce what you listed above and I can partially reproduce it. The part i cannot totally reproduce is after I have logged in and set the third party custom domain cookie I close Safari. Then I re-open it and go to my custom domain. I do not show as logged in but I hit refresh and after one or two times it does show me as being logged in. So it does need to re-add the third party custom domain cookie when it should already have it set. We're looking into this as it should already have that set.

SamirD

Andy wrote: »

Yes, to you I recommended that because you are techy. Two browsers is WAY better, but many don't grok that so that's why we built visitor view.

I actually like visitor view better than two browsers because it's faster. Two browsers kills the system when you start beating on both of them. I've just gone to using multiple computers now.

gecko0

I had a similar problem when I registered my custom domain name. I updated the "nickname" in the control panel, but the My Homepage link retained my old friendly URL for about a day or so. Not sure if it was a replication scenario on the backend, but might be related to what is going on here.

SamirD

gecko0 wrote: »

I had a similar problem when I registered my custom domain name. I updated the "nickname" in the control panel, but the My Homepage link retained my old friendly URL for about a day or so. Not sure if it was a replication scenario on the backend, but might be related to what is going on here.

Interesting. I see my smugmug domain once in a while after clicking on links generated by the uploaders. I haven't taken the time to research when it happens yet, but I know this will foil visitor view pretty quickly.

jfriend

SamirD wrote: »

I actually like visitor view better than two browsers because it's faster. Two browsers kills the system when you start beating on both of them. I've just gone to using multiple computers now.

You have an underpowered computer (perhaps too little RAM or CPU) if using two browsers kills your system. I do this all the time and never have an issue with my system getting killed. I'm running 32-bit Windows Vista with 4GB RAM and a quad core 2.4GHz CPU - it's a 3-year old system.

I never use visitor view because it is a simulation (not the real thing) and thus is subject to bugs/issues with the simulation and differences between visitor view and the real thing. Running a logged out browser IS the same as what a viewer sees - no simulation involved.

SamirD

jfriend wrote: »

You have an underpowered computer (perhaps too little RAM or CPU) if using two browsers kills your system. I do this all the time and never have an issue with my system getting killed. I'm running 32-bit Windows Vista with 4GB RAM and a quad core 2.4GHz CPU - it's a 3-year old system.

I can kill a hp dc5750 just using FF by itself. And that's an Athlon X2 with 3GB of RAM on XP, so it's lean and mean and only 4yrs old. I'm not even going to try running two browsers when one can kill the system.

jfriend wrote: »

I never use visitor view because it is a simulation (not the real thing) and thus is subject to bugs/issues with the simulation and differences between visitor view and the real thing. Running a logged out browser IS the same as what a viewer sees - no simulation involved.

I haven't seen any bugs in visitor view, just that it goes back to owner view at times. What have you seen?

jfriend

SamirD wrote: »

I can kill a hp dc5750 just using FF by itself. And that's an Athlon X2 with 3GB of RAM on XP, so it's lean and mean and only 4yrs old. I'm not even going to try running two browsers when one can kill the system.

I haven't seen any bugs in visitor view, just that it goes back to owner view at times. What have you seen?

For one, it's got some extra HTML at the top of the screen that isn't the same as a visitor gets, thus affecting the layout of the page. For two, EVERY single piece of code at Smugmug that would normally do something different when the user is logged in has to check for visitor view and adapt it's behavior. It would be very, very easy to miss one of those in their coding. I'd rather test with the real thing than a simulated thing. I have a free Firefox add-on that lets me right click in any page in Firefox and fire up either IE or Safari on that page. So previewing a page in one of those other browsers is one click for me.

Perhaps your issue is XP. It's really old technology. Not as robust memory management, not as robust virtual memory, not as robust in cleaning up things that processes leak, etc... I am a heavy duty web user (often with 5-10 apps open at once and multiple browsers and multiple browser windows) and I reboot my system about once every few weeks, usually only when required to do so by some installation program.

I do occasionally (once every couple weeks), see Firefox get into a funk which requires me to shut it down and restart it. But, that is an app issue, not a system issue and could also be caused by of the many Firefox add-ons I run too (I don't really know what causes it).

Andy

jfriend wrote: »

Perhaps your issue is XP.

Olde as it is, we still support it (though there's limited support for IE6 now, especially for Owners doing some admin type stuff)... I ran Samir's site on a 1Gb XP box and the galleries come up zippy for me, and browsing is fast.

jfriend

Andy wrote: »

Olde as it is, we still support it (though there's limited support for IE6 now, especially for Owners doing some admin type stuff)... I ran Samir's site on a 1Gb XP box and the galleries come up zippy for me, and browsing is fast.

Andy, my comment was not about bringing up his site. My comment was about multiple browsers killing his system. He's running ancient software when a lot better software is available. Windows XP was designed more than 10 years ago and first released 9 years ago. That's ancient in the computer realm.

Andy

jfriend wrote: »

Andy, my comment was not about bringing up his site. My comment was about multiple browsers killing his system. He's running ancient software when a lot better software is available. Windows XP was designed more than 10 years ago and first released 9 years ago. That's ancient in the computer realm.

Yeah John, I know, thanks. Samir is having issues with XP, and he also has stated his worry about his clients using XP (50% he says, which is about 1000x more than our site as a whole, btw)... anyhow, I was just trying to show that it's zippy for me on a lame 1Gb XP system.

SamirD

Andy wrote: »

Olde as it is, we still support it (though there's limited support for IE6 now, especially for Owners doing some admin type stuff)... I ran Samir's site on a 1Gb XP box and the galleries come up zippy for me, and browsing is fast.

The processor and video card make a really big difference on the display of the galleries. A p3-866 that I still use was at the end of its service life a few years ago until a Radeon video card and some ram from a failed system more than doubled its speed.

jfriend

Andy wrote: »

Yeah John, I know, thanks. Samir is having issues with XP, and he also has stated his worry about his clients using XP (50% he says, which is about 1000x more than our site as a whole, btw)... anyhow, I was just trying to show that it's zippy for me on a lame 1Gb XP system.

Then, if would help if next time, you please quote what he's saying, not what I'm saying since your comment didn't really have anything to do with what I said that you quoted. That's why I felt the need to respond and correct things.

Andy

jfriend wrote: »

Then, if would help if next time, you please quote what he's saying, not what I'm saying since your comment didn't really have anything to do with what I said that you quoted. That's why I felt the need to respond and correct things.

I'm so sorry John, I picked up on your XP comment and then just posted. I'm sorry about that, I really am.

SamirD

jfriend wrote: »

Perhaps your issue is XP. It's really old technology.

That's the same thing people were saying to me when win95 came out about win3.1. And then they would ask me how to get their plug and play to work. Newer isn't always better, and older isn't necessarily worse. It's all in the setup. My 94 Accord won't take you in a straight line, but I'll eat you alive in the corners.

I have almost 40 browser windows open on the 3gb ram system I'm using right now. I usually try not to load up more than 20 at any one point in time. And when reviewing images on SM, I try to only use those SM windows so everything else will swap out and free memory. I have to reboot this system no less than 5 times a weekend when uploading or viewing videos on SM. Otherwise, it stays on for weeks at a time without a problem. Why is it that only SM brings it to it's knees? Why is it that SM is the only one that brings all of them to their knees? Even the p3-866 running xph with 1gb of RAM runs for a week until the weekend when it's image processing time.

I follow most corporate upgrade paths, and many are still using XP and related platforms in their data centers. The migration is there for sure since win7 came out, but I don't have the cash to plunk down for a machine that essentially will just be 'prettier'. If win7 was the solution, I should be able to run it on my current hardware and it be faster, and that's also what they said about win95 back in the day...it wasn't true.

They taught us in college to not worry about writing efficient code because the hardware will get faster--and I guess this is the end result. You need 4GB of ram and a quad-processor to look at images on the Internet, when a complete Office Suite like OpenOffice will run on a 1Ghz with 512MB of RAM without a problem.

I just find it pretty hard to swallow that you need 4GB of ram and a quad-processor to look at a site which, at the heart of it, is just a gallery of images. Come on. When people hosted their own images using coppermine, you could access it without needing heavy browser horsepower to do so. And it's what transformed images to being a reality on the Internet. I understand that the target customer for SM is the upper crust of photographers that will have technology at their disposal, but their clients may not. I run into those clients. I have no idea how many sales I've lost because of browser overhead. Actually, wait, I remember I lost $40 in sales because someone's cart wouldn't check out. And I only found out because he was at a car show the next following weekend and told me about it. I told him to call me when he's in front of the computer and I'll walk him right through it. He never called. He had over $150,000 in cars on display at that show that day--and he owns more than just those two cars. :cry These are the types of customers I've lost, and so did SM. :cry

I guess the bottom line is that I'm not spending money on computer hardware for just one web site, and SM's overhead isn't going to change, so I guess I'll have to deal with these problems until I get a hand-me-down that's faster than what I have or find a killer deal on a business-class system in CDWs outlet. Then I can run two browsers instead of running visitor view. (Had to bring the original topic back. )

jfriend

SamirD wrote: »

That's the same thing people were saying to me when win95 came out about win3.1. And then they would ask me how to get their plug and play to work. Newer isn't always better, and older isn't necessarily worse. It's all in the setup. My 94 Accord won't take you in a straight line, but I'll eat you alive in the corners.

I have almost 40 browser windows open on the 3gb ram system I'm using right now. I usually try not to load up more than 20 at any one point in time. And when reviewing images on SM, I try to only use those SM windows so everything else will swap out and free memory. I have to reboot this system no less than 5 times a weekend when uploading or viewing videos on SM. Otherwise, it stays on for weeks at a time without a problem. Why is it that only SM brings it to it's knees? Why is it that SM is the only one that brings all of them to their knees? Even the p3-866 running xph with 1gb of RAM runs for a week until the weekend when it's image processing time.

I follow most corporate upgrade paths, and many are still using XP and related platforms in their data centers. The migration is there for sure since win7 came out, but I don't have the cash to plunk down for a machine that essentially will just be 'prettier'. If win7 was the solution, I should be able to run it on my current hardware and it be faster, and that's also what they said about win95 back in the day...it wasn't true.

They taught us in college to not worry about writing efficient code because the hardware will get faster--and I guess this is the end result. You need 4GB of ram and a quad-processor to look at images on the Internet, when a complete Office Suite like OpenOffice will run on a 1Ghz with 512MB of RAM without a problem.

I just find it pretty hard to swallow that you need 4GB of ram and a quad-processor to look at a site which, at the heart of it, is just a gallery of images. Come on. When people hosted their own images using coppermine, you could access it without needing heavy browser horsepower to do so. And it's what transformed images to being a reality on the Internet. I understand that the target customer for SM is the upper crust of photographers that will have technology at their disposal, but their clients may not. I run into those clients. I have no idea how many sales I've lost because of browser overhead. Actually, wait, I remember I lost $40 in sales because someone's cart wouldn't check out. And I only found out because he was at a car show the next following weekend and told me about it. I told him to call me when he's in front of the computer and I'll walk him right through it. He never called. He had over $150,000 in cars on display at that show that day--and he owns more than just those two cars. :cry These are the types of customers I've lost, and so did SM. :cry

I guess the bottom line is that I'm not spending money on computer hardware for just one web site, and SM's overhead isn't going to change, so I guess I'll have to deal with these problems until I get a hand-me-down that's faster than what I have or find a killer deal on a business-class system in CDWs outlet. Then I can run two browsers instead of running visitor view. (Had to bring the original topic back. )

So, your system gets hosed after running a browser for a while and you think it's Smugmug's problem, not something in your system or system configuration? And, you think XP is a better platform for running a browser than Vista or Windows7 and that an up-to-date system wouldn't help with this issue at all?

In defense of Smugmug here (and you know I don't always defend them), they are taking advantage of newer technology and faster computers to offer capabilities that coppermine doesn't offer. For example, the Smugmug view automatically adapts to your browser screen. That requires generating the page view dynamically with javascript rather than serving static web pages like coppermine does. The price for that progress is that Smugmug may not work as well on old computer setups and a simpler design that doesn't offer advanced capabilities. It's your choice. You can run Coppermine if that's what you want.

Andy

SamirD wrote: »

I just find it pretty hard to swallow that you need 4GB of ram and a quad-processor to look at a site which, at the heart of it, is just a gallery of images.

You don't. I posted movies of your site on my 1Gb 1-processor lame-o Windows XP system and the site screams.

http://screencast.com/t/PzmF3XEE1Ww here's another one. I used FF because that's what you said you use

SamirD

jfriend wrote: »

So, your system gets hosed after running a browser for a while and you think it's Smugmug's problem, not something in your system or system configuration? And, you think XP is a better platform for running a browser than Vista or Windows7 and that an up-to-date system wouldn't help with this issue at all?

No, I'm not saying that. But why is it that SM is the only site that kills my systems? And I could understand if it was just one computer, or one generation, but come on. It kills everything from p3 to Athlons, 512mb ram to 3gb, xp home, embedded, and pro. At varying speeds, but kills them nonetheless. And with the literally hundreds of sites I visit a week, this is the only one? You know diagnosis of these type of problems as well as I do. And you still think it's the computers? The same ones that work fine for anything other than SM?

jfriend wrote: »

In defense of Smugmug here (and you know I don't always defend them), they are taking advantage of newer technology and faster computers to offer capabilities that coppermine doesn't offer. For example, the Smugmug view automatically adapts to your browser screen. That requires generating the page view dynamically with javascript rather than serving static web pages like coppermine does. The price for that progress is that Smugmug may not work as well on old computer setups and a simpler design that doesn't offer advanced capabilities. It's your choice. You can run Coppermine if that's what you want.

I understand that SM is trying to be the cream of the crop, no arguement there. But there's a difference between carefully advancing, and purposefully leaving people behind in the effort of advancing. SM is a careful adopter of technology, watching it proven on other sites and with other companies before implementing it themselves (except when it comes to i-anything, that's a different story). Why would SM assume it's users would be any different in their adopting of technology?

And why not make a site backwards compatible with less features? When did that concept ever become a dirty idea in website development? Most sites can detect browsers/OS's/connections speeds, and more than just screen size. Why not use that to make the best visitor experience no matter what someone has?

I'm not going anywhere as I use SM too much. But they're losing sales and so am I because of technical issues. The more revenue we both make, the more both of us can do. It's the only reason I bring it up.

SamirD

Andy wrote: »

You don't. I posted movies of your site on my 1Gb 1-processor lame-o Windows XP system and the site screams.

http://screencast.com/t/PzmF3XEE1Ww here's another one. I used FF because that's what you said you use

I dunno what to say. On this Athlon x2 3gb ram system with 75mb of download speeds at its disposal, I can't re-create that speed.