[Implemented] Share/Get a Link needs original link if originals enabled

jfriend

Why does the Share button not offer links to the originals when access to originals is enabled? This makes it very hard for people to get links to the original size of their images for customizing purposes. It's even harder now that the link format is more complex than it used to be.

When we're trying to help people solve customization problems when they don't have the right direct link to their image, we tell them to go to the Share button and get a link to the original image there - but alas you don't offer that. What are we supposed to tell them. Go get a link to the Large image and then manually modify the URL to point to the original. That's not something most people can do without a ton of explanation. This is broken for customizers.

Please offer a link to the originals in the Share button/Get a Link screen if originals are enabled for access. If you really want to, you can only offer originals if the user is logged in, but from my point of view, if originals are set for access, they are set for access, why not allow Get a Link?

MSkaffari

Thanks John for pointing this out. We have added this into the list of things to fix.

jfriend

MSkaffari wrote: »

Thanks John for pointing this out. We have added this into the list of things to fix.

Thanks. This will help customizers a lot.

scotticus

Makes sense to me, we'll see about getting it added in in the near future.

polanri

Would be helpful indeed, I'm currently trying to get a direct link to an image to use as background for my css. I could do it with the old link structure but now I'm lost.. In the mean time, how should I modify the url now?

SamirD

If your current link is say like the following:

http://newpics.huntsvillecarscene.com/photos/i-79xp6t9/0/M/i-79xp6t9-M.jpg

Then everywhere you see the 'M' you need to change that to 'O' (I believe).
So the example above becomes:

http://newpics.huntsvillecarscene.com/photos/i-79xp6t9/0/O/i-79xp6t9-O.jpg

The original link for the example above won't work because I have originals turned off, but this method should work for you.

DTsai

Thanks for the work-around. The "Get a Link" Photo Links, Original size is still not there.

SamirD

DTsai wrote: »

Thanks for the work-around. The "Get a Link" Photo Links, Original size is still not there.

Check to see if you allow originals for the gallery. If this is off, the link will only display the largest allowed size, as is the case of the links in my previous post (limited to medium).

beardedgit

When is this going to be sorted out? It's been on the "list of things to fix" for 21 months!

Our original images are our definitives, it seems odd that we have a setting to allow them to be seen but we don't have pre-formatted links to them although we do have pre-formatted links to a range of other sizes.

Surely this change isn't rocket-science. Is there any reason why it can't be done?

SamirD

If someone wants, I can write a quick JavaScript that will create the originals link when the url with the image is pasted into it. Not a permanent solution, but it would be a solid workaround.

beardedgit

SamirD wrote: »

If someone wants, I can write a quick JavaScript that will create the originals link when the url with the image is pasted into it. Not a permanent solution, but it would be a solid workaround.

Sounds interesting. A couple of questions though:

1: Is that going to be any quicker than doing a manual edit?

2: Will it work for us Basic Account users?

SamirD

beardedgit wrote: »

Sounds interesting. A couple of questions though:

1: Is that going to be any quicker than doing a manual edit?

2: Will it work for us Basic Account users?

It should be. It would be similar to something I made to quickly generate slideshow code the way I want it:
www.huntsvillecarscene.com/inline.htm

If this works, then I'll try to throw something together.

beardedgit

SamirD wrote: »

If this works, then I'll try to throw something together.

OK, but let's not lose sight of the real issue here - it's SmugMug who should be fixing this, there should be no need for users to cobble-together workarounds.

SamirD

beardedgit wrote: »

OK, but let's not lose sight of the real issue here - it's SmugMug who should be fixing this, there should be no need for users to cobble-together workarounds.

I agree with you, but there's no making SM do anything they don't see as a priority. I've been wanting FTP uploading for over half a decade now...and my business model won't be waiting on them for it.

beardedgit

Aye, well, big ships are held together by little rivets.

Ten minutes of playing in the sandbox and twenty of testing should be enough - I've had a look at the page-code and I reckon my kids could fix it, it doesn't seem to be much more than a cut/paste/edit job.

SamirD

beardedgit wrote: »

Aye, well, big ships are held together by little rivets.

Ten minutes of playing in the sandbox and twenty of testing should be enough - I've had a look at the page-code and I reckon my kids could fix it, it doesn't seem to be much more than a cut/paste/edit job.

True, but will it happen? If I really need something and it's costing me lots of time and I can just make a bandaid, then that's what has to be done.

For years, the uploaders had a problem with duplicates if the uploading was stopped and resumed. After dealing with this for too long, I just used the api to make my own duplicate finder. Now, I can see in just a few seconds if there's dupes and delete them. There still isn't a native SM duplicate detector after almost a decade. Glad I didn't wait!

beardedgit

I hear what you're saying about the dupes thing.

Regarding the original thrust of this thread, it would be good to know that someone... anyone... from SM has read this thread recently. Being told here that the problem's either been assigned to someone (or swept under the carpet) would be a good indicator of SM's intent. Currently there's no evidence here of SM staff having read this thread since 2011.

It's a shame it's not a bug, as I'm sure that it would receive better attention in the "Bug Reporting" sub-forum.

jfriend

beardedgit wrote: »

I hear what you're saying about the dupes thing.

Regarding the original thrust of this thread, it would be good to know that someone... anyone... from SM has read this thread recently. Being told here that the problem's either been assigned to someone (or swept under the carpet) would be a good indicator of SM's intent. Currently there's no evidence here of SM staff having read this thread since 2011.

It's a shame it's not a bug, as I'm sure that it would receive better attention in the "Bug Reporting" sub-forum.

I have no idea where Smugmug is on the promised gallery UI redesign, but I could imagine that if it's anywhere more than 70% done, they really don't want to spend time fixing issues on the old design if they can avoid it because as soon as the new thing ships the time spent fixing the old thing is wasted time (assuming this area of the UI has been redesigned).

It's a tricky situation to be in (I've been there before as a development manager and product line manager) where the more time you spend fixing issues on the old code base, the longer it takes to get the new thing done. Your customers want both, but it's a pure tradeoff space so you can't deliver both as fast as everyone wants. Obviously, there's a limit to how long you can let problems fester unaddressed in the old code base and if the new thing gets delayed more than planned or the plans change which pushes its delivery out, then things get even trickier. I have no data either way on this - I could just imagine that there's some of that going on here and since we're not in the middle of all the tradeoffs to be judged, it's hard for us to know what the right decision is. It would help customer peace of mind to at least know the issue is being listened to and a rational decision is being made about it.

beardedgit

A tricky situation indeed!

Common-sense says that this issue should be fixed in any UI redeisgn, but if they're basing the functionality of the new UI on the old one then the issue/fix could be missed out again.

Whatever happens, I really do hope that SM doesn't make the same "improvement" botch that Photobucket has made recently. Then again, it's not easy to be 100% confident when the fixers are being so elusive.

mbonocore

Hi All,

I have read all of your comments on this thread. I am listening

There is an active request outstanding for this. I cannot tell where it currently stands, but in the meantime there is a workaround that should help if you need the link. I do wish I had more information to give, but I simply do not.

Michael

beardedgit

Hi Michael,

Thanks for dropping by and letting us know that you're listening, it is much appreciated.

Regarding the workaround... yes, I know it. Sadly, I've been having to use it for too many years. I trust that you will get back to us when you've found out where the request stands - I look forward to reading what progress has been made regarding this matter.

Best regards,

beardedgit

SamirD

So about that javascript workaround that I could make for you guys...:D

mbonocore

beardedgit wrote: »

Hi Michael,

Thanks for dropping by and letting us know that you're listening, it is much appreciated.

Regarding the workaround... yes, I know it. Sadly, I've been having to use it for too many years. I trust that you will get back to us when you've found out where the request stands - I look forward to reading what progress has been made regarding this matter.

Best regards,

beardedgit

Thank you for your understanding Beardedgit! I will keep you posted on any changes.

Michael

beardedgit

mbonocore wrote: »

Thank you for your understanding Beardedgit! I will keep you posted on any changes.

Michael

No problem. Would 48 hours be enough time for you to find out what's what and to get back to us with a status update?

beardedgit

beardedgit wrote: »

... Would 48 hours be enough time for you to find out what's what and to get back to us with a status update?

That'll be a "no", then.

:pissed

There used to be a time when SM staff and heroes were such a kind and generous bunch of folk that would bend over backwards to help us users. Now we're reduced to begging for crumbs at their table, and even the crumbs are stale and in short supply.

It's really disappointing.

mbonocore

beardedgit wrote: »

That'll be a "no", then.

:pissed

There used to be a time when SM staff and heroes were such a kind and generous bunch of folk that would bend over backwards to help us users. Now we're reduced to begging for crumbs at their table, and even the crumbs are stale and in short supply.

It's really disappointing.

Hi Beard,

I sincerely apologize! This has been an incredibly busy week, and I somehow wasn't getting notifications for responses on this thread. I take full responsibility, and you have me to blame for not responding to the last message.

I do not have any additional updates as of now, as the request is still in the review process.

Michael

beardedgit

Apology accepted, thanks for your attention.

OK, I appreciate that you have no news at present, but maybe you could explain why this request is still in limbo nearly two years after it was raised. I don't expect you to have all the answers, Michael, but I'm confident that you could let us know who does.

SamirD

beardedgit wrote: »

OK, I appreciate that you have no news at present, but maybe you could explain why this request is still in limbo nearly two years after it was raised.

Wow, I never even noticed the thread date.

mbonocore

beardedgit wrote: »

Apology accepted, thanks for your attention.

OK, I appreciate that you have no news at present, but maybe you could explain why this request is still in limbo nearly two years after it was raised. I don't expect you to have all the answers, Michael, but I'm confident that you could let us know who does.

Request such as this, even though it seems simple, have a process that needs to be fully followed to make sure there are no negative ramifications. This involves solid QA to make sure nothing else is broken and it behaves as desired, once it is scheduled, so it really is difficult to gauge a timeframe.

I sincerely apologize. I wish I could give you a better answer, but at this time, I just cannot

beardedgit

I hear you about the QA - I've been in QA for >30 years, 15 at top-level, making decisions about systems that involve lives, not mere photos. MilSpec, CAA, NCAP... Ramifications? yeah, serious ramifications there! I know how complex some changes can be. I also know how simple others can be. I believe that, with the good and efficient QA system that we hope SM employs, this change should be one of the simple ones. I assume that you'll disagree with my take on the matter.

Either way, I find it incredulous that such a minor change should have been active in the SM QA system for 21 months without being implemented, rejected or even noticed.

We have a QA motto - "Authority without Responsibility is Irresponsibility". Somebody in authority should have the answers that you don't have regarding this matter. At the risk of sounding churlish for repeating myself... "I'm confident that you could let us know who does."

mbonocore

beardedgit wrote: »

I hear you about the QA - I've been in QA for >30 years, 15 at top-level, making decisions about systems that involve lives, not mere photos. MilSpec, CAA, NCAP... Ramifications? yeah, serious ramifications there! I know how complex some changes can be. I also know how simple others can be. I believe that, with the good and efficient QA system that we hope SM employs, this change should be one of the simple ones. I assume that you'll disagree with my take on the matter.

Either way, I find it incredulous that such a minor change should have been active in the SM QA system for 21 months without being implemented, rejected or even noticed.

We have a QA motto - "Authority without Responsibility is Irresponsibility". Somebody in authority should have the answers that you don't have regarding this matter. At the risk of sounding churlish for repeating myself... "I'm confident that you could let us know who does."

I am the one who is the watching this issue, so ultimately I am the one who will let you know the status of this. Once this is reviewed, I will know where it stands. Until then, really there is no more information that myself, or anyone can provide.

I am sorry this is not the answer you were hoping for.

Michael