Help SmugMug design folders/galleries

Baldy · December 15, 2010

Hi everyone,

We get asked often for photos within subject categories and subcategories.

We're in the thick of designing more tiers of categories (for now we're referring to them internally as folders), and in parallel we're designing more beautiful, intuitive and commerce-friendly enhancements to the galleries.

Assume for the moment that you'll have 5 levels of categories (folders). And you'll also be able to see them in a tree. The question is: if you have enough levels, what is the reason for putting photos into a folder instead of restricting them to albums at the end of the tree?

Here's why we ask: if folders have to include photos instead of things like other folders, guest lists,etc., it dramatically changes the design. The same goes for albums. If they have to contain folders, guest lists, etc., (including all the things that together we'll think of in the future), it makes the navigation more confusing and the design less clean.

Is the main reason that you want photos in folders today because we only allow two levels deep? And if we add 3 or more extra levels, it'd solve these problems?

Thanks!
Baldy

jfriend · December 15, 2010

If I understand you correctly, you're going to expose multiple levels of folders (you mentioned at least 5 levels). At a minimum those folders will be able to contain either other folders or galleries (like we have today, but more levels). You're asking if those folders should also be able to contain images directly (e.g. each folder is essentially also a gallery).

I personally have no need to have photos in the intermediate folders. I think that just makes everything really much more complicated than need be. Multiple levels with photos at the leaf level is all I need.

The only reason I can think of for allowing a folder to contain photos directly is to mimic the computer file system when people are using Smugmug for backup. But, I don't see a reason that using that actually makes a better viewing experience for normal photos and it definitely complicates the navigation model a lot.

Further, as one who has used your API and written a lot of customizations, a lot more stuff is going to break and have to be rewritten if you let folders contain photos in addition to containing galleries and other folders. What a mess to switch to.

So, I see little benefit and lots of negatives to letting folders contain images directly. As long as they can contain galleries and other folders, I'm fine.

Baldy · December 15, 2010

jfriend wrote: »

If I understand you correctly, you're going to expose multiple levels of folders (you mentioned at least 5 levels). At a minimum those folders will be able to contain either other folders or galleries (like we have today, but more levels). You're asking if those folders should also be able to contain images directly (e.g. each folder is essentially also a gallery).

I personally have no need to have photos in the intermediate folders. I think that just makes everything really much more complicated than need be. Multiple levels with photos at the leaf level is all I need.

The only reason I can think of for allowing a folder to contain photos directly is to mimic the computer file system when people are using Smugmug for backup. But, I don't see a reason that using that actually makes a better viewing experience for normal photos and it definitely complicates the navigation model a lot.

Further, as one who has used your API and written a lot of customizations, a lot more stuff is going to break and have to be rewritten if you let folders contain photos in addition to containing galleries and other folders. What a mess to switch to.

So, I see little benefit and lots of negatives to letting folders contain images directly. As long as they can contain galleries and other folders, I'm fine.

You understood my question exactly right and mentioned a scenario I failed to, which is what do we do about syncing.

In the end we decided syncing was its own problem and shouldn't be allowed to wreck the navigating/buying experience.

So we're where you are, folders should be able to contain galleries and other folders (and other objects) but a gallery is a gallery and a folder is a folder and their designs should be different.

jasonscottphoto · December 16, 2010

Baldy wrote: »

Is the main reason that you want photos in folders today because we only allow two levels deep? And if we add 3 or more extra levels, it'd solve these problems?

YES!!!

denisegoldberg · December 16, 2010

I have no need to have photos in intermediate folders - photos in galleries (at the end of however many numbers of levels) is what I need.

Five levels is probably sufficient for my needs; fewer than five will not work for me.

But - unless you also change the thumbnail sizes I (still) won't be able to switch from my own html-only structure. I implemented that (instead of exposing the standard category / subcategory screens) for two reasons, not enough levels, and very poor representation of categories / subcategories / galleries when represented by 100x100 or even 150x150 thumbs (both are too small as far as I am concerned). I would love to return to using standard smug screens, so please, please, extend both the number of levels and the size of the thumbs, allowing me to specify the thumb size to be used.

--- Denise

Shantyman · December 16, 2010

As I've considering purchase of Smugmug account, only 3-level gallery was a little bit confusing for me. But when I tried this, I notticed, that 3-levels gallery is enough and if somebody wants more, should consider better organization of his/her pictures.

Now I've got categories->subcategories->galleries and this is best and enough solution for me.

Allen · December 16, 2010

Baldy wrote: »

... if folders have to include photos instead of things like other folders, guest lists,etc., it dramatically changes the design....

I don't understand this, only galleries can contain photos and a gallery could
be added to any level, right?

What I'd like to see is a "description box" available on every level, cat,
sub-cat, sub-sub-cat, sub-sub-sub-cat, just like a gallery has the "album
description" box. Maybe allowing the boxTop (text box) for each galleriesBox,
categoriesBox, subcategoriesBox, subsubcategoriesBox, etc., be editable
as an html text box.

jfriend · December 16, 2010

denisegoldberg wrote: »

But - unless you also change the thumbnail sizes I (still) won't be able to switch from my own html-only structure. I implemented that (instead of exposing the standard category / subcategory screens) for two reasons, not enough levels, and very poor representation of categories / subcategories / galleries when represented by 100x100 or even 150x150 thumbs (both are too small as far as I am concerned). I would love to return to using standard smug screens, so please, please, extend both the number of levels and the size of the thumbs, allowing me to specify the thumb size to be used.

--- Denise

I agree with Denise on the thumbnail sizes for categories/folders/galleries. With such large screens and stretchy designs, restricting us to tiny thumbnails really limits our design options and way under-represents our site. Because mobile browsing on small screens is also important, I'm in favor of a stretchy design for categories that uses larger thumbs when there's room and smaller thumbs when there's not with the ability for us to control it.

pilotdave · December 16, 2010

I'd like the flexibility to place photos in folders. I think something that's been asked for many times is a "subgallery." This would require the 2nd to lowest level to be the "gallery" and another below it to be a "subgallery." In other words, there would have to be at least two levels where photos can be placed.

I think treating categories, subcategories, galleries, folders, albums, etc as the same thing is the way to go. I realize it might not be possible without starting from scratch. But it's what everybody is used to... it's the way things work on our computers. It gives flexibility for uses that I can't even think of yet.

But just adding a few more levels to the category/subcategory structure would be a big help. Get rid of the events feature and implement all of that stuff at the category/subcategory/gallery/etc level. A sub-sub-cateogory could now become the event, and then all the necessary galleries would be placed below it. And then those nice features like favorites would become available in all galleries. And it would greatly simplify navigating the site.

To summarize, I really hope you go ahead and add a few more levels of directory structure. And I hope at least a couple levels can contain photos, if not all of them.

Dave

jasonscottphoto · December 16, 2010

pilotdave wrote: »

But just adding a few more levels to the category/subcategory structure would be a big help. Get rid of the events feature and implement all of that stuff at the category/subcategory/gallery/etc level. A sub-sub-cateogory could now become the event, and then all the necessary galleries would be placed below it. And then those nice features like favorites would become available in all galleries. And it would greatly simplify navigating the site.

BigRed · December 16, 2010

I also feel that additional levels are the important thing, with albums/photos needed only at the end of each branch. But please, when designing these trees, be sure the complete path is visible for all maintenance functions. Such a levels expansion would make this even more critical than it is now. See:
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=181694&highlight=path

WinsomeWorks · December 17, 2010

I didn't entirely grasp the question, but after reading the whole thread I sorta get it. (use of the word "folder" throws me off) But I'm not in great need of more levels; perhaps just one more. My main beef is I don't like to go through tons of clicks before getting to see a photo, or before a gallery opens. Most gorgeous sites are getting away from that. I don't think my guests like clicking thru levels either-- stats show this. I'd much rather have much bigger thumb displays that are smart to what space is available, like JFriend says. (and I love how his own display structure works) Whatever would help accomplish that in terms of structure would be grand. I also love what Al said-- about an editable description-box on each level. I'd even love having the ability to write something over the copy space of one of my own photos.

Wouldn't this be grand? --Instead of little thumbs with descriptions & title taking up bkgrd space beside them, allow the use of photo copy-space in large thumbs to place that stuff if wanted. And the other thing that would, in the long run, often highly simplify this cat / sub-cat / gallery structure & save you guys a lot of storage space is this: make galleries in general much more virtually nimble. A gallery should be able to be virtually listed in several cats & sub-cats if needed. We shouldn't have to create a whole new gallery to contain virtual photos & go through all those settings again to accomplish this, then list one in this cat & one in another. I never understood why they were implemented that way... they're much less flexible than we users envisioned them, and therefore don't save SmugMug space the way they could.

So instead of seeing a gallery as the very end of one string of cats/sub-cats, that same gallery should have the ability to be like a nest sitting at the end of several different branches at the same time... without having to build a non-virtual gallery shell to contain virtual photos each time you want it in another category. I know this may sound off-track here (& I do have a Feature Request for it) but if this kind of structural work is being considered, I think what I'm talking about has a real place in this structure to save you the space that more, bigger thumbs may require. Right now, people are most likely to just re-upload whole galleries that they want nesting on several branches, because you're making them re-create the whole gallery shell anyway even for virtual copies. If you instead allow several different paths to take a visitor to the same gallery, i.e. allow virtual nesting (my phrase) people won't need multiple copies of the same gallery. So I could have a family music gallery that belongs in both family cat & music cat. Now, all I'd do is show virtually somehow that the gallery is in both cats, and when you'd click on its thumb you're taken to it-- the same gallery in both cats.

kwalsh · December 17, 2010

To your original question, no I don't see the need for a "folder" to contain individual photos. I completely understand the interface issues this would create.

Regarding some other comments in the thread:

+1 on larger and smarter thumbnails

+100 on improved virtual photos and virtual galleries, including custom sorting

Ken

Allen · December 17, 2010

Seymore wrote: »

K.I.S.S. is always good. I wouldn't want my viewers wading thru a complicated mess. For most, 2-3 tiers is fine. And I think that if you offered this to the PROS only and kept the lower paying tiers clean... well, this is the only way to have your cake and eat it too. Or maybe make it a purchasable option upgrade to a tier?

Me? I don't want/need more than the tier structure than is in place. If you choose to make more things to break in the system... well, this doesn't make much sense to me. I don't want it.

Why not just use the number of levels we have now and not be effected at all?

jcdill · December 31, 2011

I never saw this thread when it was first posted. Has this been implemented?

As for a reason to allow photos IN a folder, not just in a gallery, it makes sense for some purposes when you start out by putting a few photos in a folder (gallery) but then need another layer of organization below. For example, I might take photos of a horse, and put them in a gallery under:

Animals -> Horses -> Portraits -> Client Name

But then later the client buys another horse, and I take more photos of both horses, and this gallery starts to gets crowded. As I do more work for this client, it would be nice to be able to put folders (galleries) inside this gallery, while still leaving the client's favorite photos in this gallery so that their bookmarked links and share links all work without any changes.

HaraldE · January 2, 2012

Virtual and Real
Morning,

Base Question:
First my answer to the original question: Yes, I want to be able to mix photos and folders. Main reason is being flexible and this was well expressed by JCDill above.

I have today stitched photos that are a combination of detail photos. Maybe the details are pieces of a building and the stitched photo is the full building itself. If so I may want the Building photo on second from bottom level and the detail photos at the bottom. If a user has a need /interest he will go down a level for the details.

A Virtual Tree:
If I could wish I would say we should have a “virtual tree”. I would like to upload a large set of photos to a storage (a large base gallery). Then I want a tool that could define this virtual tree. None of the branches or level would be “real”, they would all be “virtual”. When the tree is defined I want to populate it with photos. This would maybe be done by drag-and-drop from “storage” or by a method similar to today’s smart gallery, by assigning a keyword.

Rearranging the virtual tree would be using drag-and–drop and would allow multiple photos in different galleries and same gallery to be placed at the end of more than one branch.

Above may be too complicated to implement so let me add a few basic comments, related to the “real world”

The Real World:
1: I assume the levels of nested folders are flexible so I can have 2 here and 4 there and 5 in another branch. And when the need changes I must be able to easily change this. The day when I see a need to split the old gallery in maybe 5 galleries, I should easily be able to add a new level and then copy the photos down from the current gallery to the new 5 on the next level down.

2: I am fond of the idea from WinsomeWorks about virtual branches, that is, having more than one way to a gallery, this would avoid the need to upload same set more than once. This is what I covered above with a “virtual tree”

3: The same set of attributes should be possible on each level, for example the obvious need to specify a text describing the folder and then another text on the sub-folder level and so on. Other attributes would be Date last Updated, Number of Galleries and Number of Photos.

4: A major help would be if I could decide on a one-way-entry between any level. This is to be able to say a user can go down but not up, at a specific point. With such a facility I could fence off corners for specific use

5: As to the number of levels I feel that a few more is sufficient, probably a total of six, more levels will not give any major benefit.

Best regards, Harald

BradfordBenn · January 5, 2012

If one can put a gallery inside any level of the folder I think that meets most of my needs. So that I could do the following:

Motorcycles > BMW > RT Gallery
Motorcycles > BMW > GS Gallery
Motorcycles > Rally Highlights Gallery
Motorcycles > Rallies > Death Valley Days > 01 Gallery
Motorcycles > Rallies > Death Valley Days > 02 Gallery

What would also be very nice would be aliases or shortcuts so that one could do redirects easily in the navigation. Basically a way to do multiple paths to the same gallery so that the breadcrumbs have a specific route.

PBolchover · January 6, 2012

As long as I can have galleries at different levels of the folders tree, then I am happy.

If possible, I would like to be able to mix folders and galleries in a single listing. (I mainly use Smugmug to share travel photos. Sometimes a single gallery is enough for a trip; sometime I want to have an entire folder. However, I would like to keep the trips in a single listing, in date order.)

gblotter · August 5, 2012

Has this been implemented yet?

I would love the ability to add at least one more organizational level between subcategories and galleries.

I seem to remember reading another customization thread with a workaround for this, but cannot find it now. If such a workaround exists, kindly point me to it.

Thanks.

rainforest1155 · August 6, 2012

gblotter wrote: »

Has this been implemented yet?

I would love the ability to add at least one more organizational level between subcategories and galleries.

I seem to remember reading another customization thread with a workaround for this, but cannot find it now. If such a workaround exists, kindly point me to it.

Do you maybe refer to this customization?

There's no news on additional levels from SmugMug's side yet. Sorry.

Pure Energy · August 15, 2012

Allen wrote: »

I don't understand this, only galleries can contain photos and a gallery could
be added to any level, right?

What I'd like to see is a "description box" available on every level, cat,
sub-cat, sub-sub-cat, sub-sub-sub-cat, just like a gallery has the "album
description" box. Maybe allowing the boxTop (text box) for each galleriesBox,
categoriesBox, subcategoriesBox, subsubcategoriesBox, etc., be editable
as an html text box.

This makes sense to me. And having a description box made available to us by SM makes perfect sense too versus spending hours getting dirty and wading through custom CSS code.

I personally would like to see at some point, six levels of galleries:

a homepage with Categories sports
- a main page of Sub-Categories hs
  - Sub-sub-category soccer
    - Sub-sub-sub-category series 2012
      - Sub-sub-sub-sub category game
        gallery with photos 1st half

Beyond six levels just seems as if someone would throw spaghetti up on the wall and not care how it landed or looked. So, I'm in favor of limiting more levels for pro account users only. We don't need SM appearing amateurish by those too lazy to tighten up their hierarchy and site organization.

We've been waiting a long time for more levels so I'd much rather have one more level asap instead of some fancy new mess that has a VERY uncertain release date.

jfriend · August 15, 2012

Pure Energy wrote: »

This makes sense to me. And having a description box made available to us by SM makes perfect sense too versus spending hours getting dirty and wading through custom CSS code.

I personally would like to see at some point, six levels of galleries:
a homepage with Categories sports
a main page of Sub-Categories hs
Sub-sub-category soccer
Sub-sub-sub-category series 2012
Sub-sub-sub-sub category game
gallery with photos 1st half

Beyond six levels just seems as if someone would throw spaghetti up on the wall and not care how it landed or looked. So, I'm in favor of limiting more levels for pro account users only. We don't need SM appearing amateurish by those too lazy to tighten up their hierarchy and site organization.

We've been waiting a long time for more levels so I'd much rather have one more level asap instead of some fancy new mess that has a VERY uncertain release date.

That may seem like a nice organized way to display your galleries, but it's way, way, way more clicks for a viewer to find something than is generally necessary and it presents only a couple options at each level and because of that, it's not as easy to navigate as it could be. It often makes much more sense to put more options at each level and have fewer levels. This lets viewers browse easier and quicker to find things and get to their destination faster. Remember, it's no big deal to offer a choice between 10-15 items on any screen. One can scan those with your eyes very quickly to find what you want, must faster than one can explore several different parts of the hierarchy. On mobile, it helps even more because each page view is slower on mobile.

I don't know the exact number of galleries you have at every spot to optimize this for you, but to give you an idea how it could be done better with a lot fewer levels, here's one idea

Sports
    High School Soccer
        2012
            Game vs. Whitman - 1st half
            Game vs. Whitman - 2nd half

This reduces your levels from 6 down to 4 and makes it quicker to navigate and explore. Without lots of custom javascript, you still need more levels than Smugmug has now to do this (so I'm not arguing against the desire for more levels), but did want to point out that 6 levels might not be best for your viewers.

Pure Energy · August 15, 2012

jfriend wrote: »
That may seem like a nice organized way to display your galleries, but it's way, way, way more clicks for a viewer to find something than is generally necessary and it presents only a couple options at each level and because of that, it's not as easy to navigate as it could be. It often makes much more sense to put more options at each level and have fewer levels. This lets viewers browse easier and quicker to find things and get to their destination faster. Remember, it's no big deal to offer a choice between 10-15 items on any screen. One can scan those with your eyes very quickly to find what you want, must faster than one can explore several different parts of the hierarchy. On mobile, it helps even more because each page view is slower on mobile.

I don't know the exact number of galleries you have at every spot to optimize this for you, but to give you an idea how it could be done better with a lot fewer levels, here's one idea
Sports
    High School Soccer
        2012
            Game vs. Whitman - 1st half
            Game vs. Whitman - 2nd half
        
This reduces your levels from 6 down to 4 and makes it quicker to navigate and explore. Without lots of custom javascript, you still need more levels than Smugmug has now to do this (so I'm not arguing against the desire for more levels), but did want to point out that 6 levels might not be best for your viewers.

I could go for one more level right now and be very happy for awhile.

Two more levels would be the ideal solution to have right now for many more years to come. But I do not think a total of 6 levels would be too much for a viewer to click through for those few sub-categories that would benefit from it.

:lol Lol, I just realized I left my notes for levels in there for you to see. Sports was just the first thing that came to mind when working out how many levels I'd like, but I have other categories that I would like the potential to take to a total of six levels. Of course with sports, things can be tightened up and until I upload the photos to fill out the levels on other categories, five levels will work just fine versus six.

Even with a total of four levels, I'm discouraged from uploading more photos to turn my site into a kick ass site for certain categories. So, I'm really discouraged when all we have at the moment is three levels for photos. Not to mention by only having the current total of three levels, my homepage is really starting to clutter up with categories that really need to be sub-categories.

Seeing sub-categories as categories on a homepage just makes me think that the photographer hasn't bothered to organize his photos at all. If he's that dis-organized, would I want to hire him? This is what I think others are thinking when they go to my site. Thanks SM. :cry

jfriend · August 15, 2012

Pure Energy wrote: »

I could go for one more level right now and be very happy for awhile.

Two more levels would be the ideal solution to have right now for many more years to come. But I do not think a total of 6 levels would be too much for a viewer to click through for those few sub-categories that would benefit from it.

:lol Lol, I just realized I left my notes for levels in there for you to see. Sports was just the first thing that came to mind when working out how many levels I'd like, but I have other categories that I would like the potential to take to a total of six levels. Of course with sports, things can be tightened up and until I upload the photos to fill out the levels on other categories, five levels will work just fine versus six.

Even with a total of four levels, I'm discouraged from uploading more photos to turn my site into a kick ass site for certain categories. So, I'm really discouraged when all we have at the moment is three levels for photos. Not to mention by only having the current total of three levels, my homepage is really starting to clutter up with categories that really need to be sub-categories.

Seeing sub-categories as categories on a homepage just makes me think that the photographer hasn't bothered to organize his photos at all. If he's that dis-organized, would I want to hire him? This is what I think others are thinking when they go to my site. Thanks SM. :cry

My point is that you can make your site work quite well with a lot fewer levels than you may have first thought and it will probably work better/more efficiently for the viewers too. I'm personally not drilling down six levels to try to find something on pretty much any site and I'm certainly not going in and out among lots of sub-sub-sub-sub-sub categories trying to find what I'm looking for. I'd much rather have two galleries icons on a page that I can scan than have to search through multiple sub-categories for the ones I'm looking for.

Also, for an idea what can be done with customization with only two levels, check out this: http://friend.smugmug.com/Sports/Palo-Alto-Rowing-Club-2012.

Pure Energy · August 15, 2012

Well, I appreciate your insight into hierarchy, jfriend, but I have a pretty tight hierarchy at the moment and I think this thread should be focused on SM seeing the immediate need for more levels, not the dragging of feet that we see.

Personally, I design my hierarchy so that I would reasonably expect someone to go back one to two levels for a different gallery. Going further back then two levels is not likely to happen all that much for those ready and willing to spend money today. All those looky-loos can and will click away willingly through however many levels I create.

While I did see a customized page for galleries somewhere, sometime that might help out or be nice to implement... what should I really be focusing on? Shooting, editing and posting photos or learning the ins and outs of all this CSS coding crap?

I guess the question all of us are asking ourselves until SM implements one, two or three more levels is as follows:

Should I have a cluttered up homepage or a gallery with too many photos in it?

jasonscottphoto · August 15, 2012

Pure Energy wrote: »

Should I have a cluttered up homepage or a gallery with too many photos in it?

Agreed! Right now, galleries with too many photos :cry

jfriend · August 16, 2012

Pure Energy wrote: »

I guess the question all of us are asking ourselves until SM implements one, two or three more levels is as follows:
Should I have a cluttered up homepage or a gallery with too many photos in it?

If you want my opinion on the layout of your homepage, I would need a link to it so I can look at what you have.

Help SmugMug design folders/galleries

Comments