If you have your domain www.yoursite.com pointed to www.smugmug.com (via CNAME record changes at your domain provider), this html file needs to be uploaded to www.smugmug.com. Currently this is not possible.
My request for a new feature is:
It would be nice if pro-accounts can upload any (size limited) file to their root directory, so that google sitemaps can verify the site. I.e. i'd like to be able to log-in to my account and upload google123456f0ce95e9d8c.html to www.yoursite.com, go to google-sitemaps and hit the 'verify' button successfully.
Thanks
-- Anton.
Probably less important, but the functionality Anton requested above could also allow a domain owner to set up their own favicon.ico file in the root of their site. Just let them upload their own (size limited) favicon.ico to the root of their site, just like the google file.
Probably less important, but the functionality Anton requested above could also allow a domain owner to set up their own favicon.ico file in the root of their site. Just let them upload their own (size limited) favicon.ico to the root of their site, just like the google file.
I think this could be easier solved by just allowing .ICO files to be uploaded. E.g. <link rel="SHORTCUT ICON" href="/photos/34435689.ico" />
However, since Smugmug adds their one "SHORTCUT ICON" link, you will see two SHORTCUT ICON links in your pages... IE does not like that. FireFox has no problem with it and picks the last one. Take a look at my site using FireFox: www.streetsofboston.com
-- Anton.
My request for a new feature is:
It would be nice if pro-accounts can upload any (size limited) file to their root directory, so that google sitemaps can verify the site. I.e. i'd like to be able to log-in to my account and upload google123456f0ce95e9d8c.html to www.yoursite.com, go to google-sitemaps and hit the 'verify' button successfully.
Great request Anton! This could possibly also enable the usage of a robots.txt to allow searchbots on the site or disallow them to index the site.
For more info have a look here.
I think this could be easier solved by just allowing .ICO files to be uploaded. E.g. <link rel="SHORTCUT ICON" href="/photos/34435689.ico" />
However, since Smugmug adds their one "SHORTCUT ICON" link, you will see two SHORTCUT ICON links in your pages... IE does not like that. FireFox has no problem with it and picks the last one. Take a look at my site using FireFox: www.streetsofboston.com
-- Anton.
I thought of that also and I'm fine with it either way, but I figured it was probably a lot easier for smugmug to piggy back on your previous request and let you upload a favicon.ico file to the root than it was for them to add a new image type to ALL of their image processing code (upload, printing, thumb conversion, color correcting, cropping, etc...). If they implemented your first request, tihs feature would be essentially free for them. Same for the robots.txt example that Sebastian cites. Of course, if they did it the way you suggest, then even people without their own domain could have a custom favicon by just pointing to it.
When replacing photos it would be nice if the metadata would also be refreshed. I added keywords to the new files, but they didn't show up.
I've optimized my image database workflow so that I only have to categorize once. Then when I export the photos I hit a button and the categories then will be written into IPTC as keywords for SM to import.
In the next couple of weeks I want to replace a lot of galleries with originals instead of my resized images I usually have uploaded to enable printing sales.
It would be really helpful if more info would be shown in the custom pricing for single images. First of all I need the resolution of the file to determine what print size I want to offer. Even better would be if you could calculate the DPI for each print size! There's so much room left between the print size and the price.
Filename or caption wouldn't be bad either.
I've mentioned this via email to them, but I wanted to mention my feature suggestion here as well...
I dislike Flickr for the most part, but they have one feature which I do like. The ability with Flash to "tag" parts of a picture, where you drag a rectangle around said area, and then give it a name. I love this when dealing with group pictures since you can then let people see who is who by hovering over the name and seeing where a box centers around. Or with items when you are trying to explain a busy picture and want to make notes about different areas of it...
It's just a really fun and rather nifty tool they have, and I think it would benefit us to put it on here some time.
I've mentioned this via email to them, but I wanted to mention my feature suggestion here as well...
I dislike Flickr for the most part, but they have one feature which I do like. The ability with Flash to "tag" parts of a picture, where you drag a rectangle around said area, and then give it a name. I love this when dealing with group pictures since you can then let people see who is who by hovering over the name and seeing where a box centers around. Or with items when you are trying to explain a busy picture and want to make notes about different areas of it...
It's just a really fun and rather nifty tool they have, and I think it would benefit us to put it on here some time.
Added fun bonus... That's fairly easy to do with CSS
Y'all don't want to hear me, you just want to dance.
I see that there isn't any options for ordering a calendar with my pictures from prints & gifts. Could that be a new product to add do you think?
-Kaj
Hi Kaj,
It's something we'd love to have. We hope to, in the future. No promises on if or when. Stay tuned to dgrin, and our release notes blog, and be sure to find out first!
save photo button
Am I the only one who would really like it if the save photo button were always there, even on protected galleries, as long as you were logged in and looking at your own page?
Arbitrarily Nested Galleries
I've struggled with the rather artificial constraint of "categories" and "sub-categories" since I first started with S.M. Maybe my 5 years of working with pbase is blinding me to the possibilities, but I seem to frequently bump into the maximum three levels in the heirarchy as an obstacle. There's at least one gallery over on my pbase account that I just don't see any way of moving here because of this limitation.
Instead of trying to adapt my galleries to the S.M. concept, what's the possibility S.M. could implement an arbitrarily deep gallery nesting feature? Am I the only one who sees utility in a concept like: Equestrian --> Show Jumping --> Briarwood Farms --> Oct 10, 2005 --> Itty Bitty Class?? That's five levels, without even trying. :
Or has it been there all along, and I just don't see it??
I've struggled with the rather artificial constraint of "categories" and "sub-categories" since I first started with S.M. Maybe my 5 years of working with pbase is blinding me to the possibilities, but I seem to frequently bump into the maximum three levels in the heirarchy as an obstacle. There's at least one gallery over on my pbase account that I just don't see any way of moving here because of this limitation.
Instead of trying to adapt my galleries to the S.M. concept, what's the possibility S.M. could implement an arbitrarily deep gallery nesting feature? Am I the only one who sees utility in a concept like: Equestrian --> Show Jumping --> Briarwood Farms --> Oct 10, 2005 --> Itty Bitty Class?? That's five levels, without even trying. :
Or has it been there all along, and I just don't see it??
I'm not discounting the feature request, but one possible work-around is to collapse the hierarchy as follows:
I'm assuming that you won't have so many different types of equestrian categories that it's hard to just browse them so it's no big deal to just make each it's own category. And, I'm assuming that people don't need to browse all briarwood farms galleries, that they could just look at a list of all show jumping galleries to find the one they want. Just a suggestion.
I've struggled with the rather artificial constraint of "categories" and "sub-categories" since I first started with S.M. Maybe my 5 years of working with pbase is blinding me to the possibilities, but I seem to frequently bump into the maximum three levels in the heirarchy as an obstacle. There's at least one gallery over on my pbase account that I just don't see any way of moving here because of this limitation.
Instead of trying to adapt my galleries to the S.M. concept, what's the possibility S.M. could implement an arbitrarily deep gallery nesting feature? Am I the only one who sees utility in a concept like: Equestrian --> Show Jumping --> Briarwood Farms --> Oct 10, 2005 --> Itty Bitty Class?? That's five levels, without even trying. :
Or has it been there all along, and I just don't see it??
Hi, abh - thanks for posting. It's not artificial - it was actually designed that way after much thought and consideration. But we do appreciate you telling us how important more levels would be to you.
it was actually designed that way after much thought and consideration.
I'd be curious to know what the thought process was -- i.e., pros, cons, etc. And especially why it was thought that an heirarchical structure controlled by the user (a la pbase) was considered to be not as good.
I'd be curious to know what the thought process was -- i.e., pros, cons, etc. And especially why it was thought that an heirarchical structure controlled by the user (a la pbase) was considered to be not as good.
It came down to the number of clicks a viewer was willing / interested in making before he/she got to the photos.
I'm assuming that you won't have so many different types of equestrian categories that it's hard to just browse them so it's no big deal to just make each it's own category. And, I'm assuming that people don't need to browse all briarwood farms galleries, that they could just look at a list of all show jumping galleries to find the one they want. Just a suggestion.
There's certainly some merit to your suggestion -- it's still a workaround to (what I perceive as) a limitation.
It came down to the number of clicks a viewer was willing / interested in making before he/she got to the photos.
You mean how many clicks you think my viewer is interested in making. IMO, it would be better if you left that judgment to me.
Hey, don't get me wrong Andy, this isn't a complete show stopper -- I've been working around it for a coupla years. : It's just that a situation came up (again) today where it would have been very convenient to just add a gallery underneath an existing gallery that's already at the bottom level of the "category / sub-category" heirarchy. As it was, I had to settle for a solution that wasn't as good as it could be. I guess I just wanted to float the idea, and see if it (a) there might already be some way of doing it that I don't know about, or (b) see if there might be others intersted in having the feature, so the developers might give it some consideration.
The perfect solution would be keywords + virtual galleries + support in password protected forums where virtual galleries let's you define a gallery that is populated with the results of a keyword search, but other than that behaves just like a normal gallery. Man would lthat be powerful.
The first two (keywords + virtual galleries) would elegantly solve this problem. Keywords as it is today do not elegantly solve the problem - the resulting UI leaves a lot to be desired and a lot for the user tro figure out.
I asked for support in a password protected environment because most of my events must be protected. My work-around is to do multiple uploads which isn't that efficient for either smugmug or myself.
The perfect solution would be keywords + virtual galleries + support in password protected forums where virtual galleries let's you define a gallery that is populated with the results of a keyword search, but other than that behaves just like a normal gallery. Man would lthat be powerful.
That does sound interesting, but to be honest, I don't think that's the "perfect" solution, at least for for me. I can't seem to get my head past the point of seeing a three level heirarchy as an artifical barrier.
skinnable cart and system status page
I have two requests...
- Could the cart be skinnable for pro users to remove the potential for confusion when customers go to buy an image and suddenly the UI changes from my favorite scheme to the standard black and white.
- Could there be a place, probably in dgrin, where we could look to see system status info...even at a very high level - say some servers are down or traffic/usage is unusually high. That way, when something acts wierd or the system slows to a crawl, we'll see if it's a known problem or not.
- Could the cart be skinnable for pro users to remove the potential for confusion when customers go to buy an image and suddenly the UI changes from my favorite scheme to the standard black and white.
It's been discussed a lot here on Dgrin. The cart can't be customized - we have to maintain total control over it for security and transacion reasons. Wish I had a better answer for you....
- Could there be a place, probably in dgrin, where we could look to see system status info...even at a very high level - say some servers are down or traffic/usage is unusually high. That way, when something acts wierd or the system slows to a crawl, we'll see if it's a known problem or not.
Keywords as it is today do not elegantly solve the problem - the resulting UI leaves a lot to be desired and a lot for the user tro figure out.
Agreed. I'm trying to wrap my head around a virtual heirarchy system that would satisfy users like abh. It's not so much the ability to do it as that exists currently, it's the keywords UI that makes it tough IMHO. Maybe you and I could ponder this over PM and bring it to Onethumb and JT as a suggestion?
Y'all don't want to hear me, you just want to dance.
Agreed. I'm trying to wrap my head around a virtual heirarchy system that would satisfy users like abh. It's not so much the ability to do it as that exists currently, it's the keywords UI that makes it tough IMHO. Maybe you and I could ponder this over PM and bring it to Onethumb and JT as a suggestion?
I've got a bunch of ideas for it. I'd be happy to discuss, maybe via my email in my profile. But, I'm only online once a day over a slow link until after New Year's so it will probably have to wait until then for me.
I've got a bunch of ideas for it. I'd be happy to discuss, maybe via my email in my profile. But, I'm only online once a day over a slow link until after New Year's so it will probably have to wait until then for me.
I've got a vacation from 8 to 28 Jan but other than that we can discuss it via email (mine's in the bio too).
Y'all don't want to hear me, you just want to dance.
Convert tagged non-sRGB to sRGB after upload
This started in the comments on the Pro Corner Blog, but I thought I'd add it to this list for some more exposure/comments.
We all know that SM's stance on color space is that your images should be in sRGB. This matters because you need it for display to most all browsers & (I think) EZ Prints doesn't properly handle non-sRGB images. Several of us do not normally work in sRGB (nor should we, in my and many others' opinions), but this can lead to display and printing problems when the images are uploaded before remembering to create some temp JPEGs converted to the sRGB space.
My suggestion would be for the SM backend to automatically convert images to sRGB if they're uploaded tagged as a different space. This would not only solve the problems caused by forgetting, but it would also mean that the conversion step before upload goes away too!
One improvement on this may be to not convert the original until print time - that way if EZ Prints or a future print vendor has a larger gamut printing capability, we won't have to re-upload all of our images...
We have been asked this before and it's something we'd love to be able to offer. We hope to. No promises on if/when but thanks for telling us how important it is to you.
Keep an eye on our release notes blog for updates:
Comments
Probably less important, but the functionality Anton requested above could also allow a domain owner to set up their own favicon.ico file in the root of their site. Just let them upload their own (size limited) favicon.ico to the root of their site, just like the google file.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
I think this could be easier solved by just allowing .ICO files to be uploaded. E.g.
<link rel="SHORTCUT ICON" href="/photos/34435689.ico" />
However, since Smugmug adds their one "SHORTCUT ICON" link, you will see two SHORTCUT ICON links in your pages... IE does not like that. FireFox has no problem with it and picks the last one. Take a look at my site using FireFox: www.streetsofboston.com
-- Anton.
When I hear the earth will melt into the sun,
in two billion years,
all I can think is:
"Will that be on a Monday?"
==========================
http://www.streetsofboston.com
http://blog.antonspaans.com
For more info have a look here.
Thanks,
Sebastian
SmugMug Support Hero
I thought of that also and I'm fine with it either way, but I figured it was probably a lot easier for smugmug to piggy back on your previous request and let you upload a favicon.ico file to the root than it was for them to add a new image type to ALL of their image processing code (upload, printing, thumb conversion, color correcting, cropping, etc...). If they implemented your first request, tihs feature would be essentially free for them. Same for the robots.txt example that Sebastian cites. Of course, if they did it the way you suggest, then even people without their own domain could have a custom favicon by just pointing to it.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
I've optimized my image database workflow so that I only have to categorize once. Then when I export the photos I hit a button and the categories then will be written into IPTC as keywords for SM to import.
In the next couple of weeks I want to replace a lot of galleries with originals instead of my resized images I usually have uploaded to enable printing sales.
Thanks,
Sebastian
SmugMug Support Hero
Filename or caption wouldn't be bad either.
Thanks,
Sebastian
SmugMug Support Hero
I dislike Flickr for the most part, but they have one feature which I do like. The ability with Flash to "tag" parts of a picture, where you drag a rectangle around said area, and then give it a name. I love this when dealing with group pictures since you can then let people see who is who by hovering over the name and seeing where a box centers around. Or with items when you are trying to explain a busy picture and want to make notes about different areas of it...
It's just a really fun and rather nifty tool they have, and I think it would benefit us to put it on here some time.
Facebook: Friend / Fan || Twitter: @shimamizu || Google Plus
Added fun bonus... That's fairly easy to do with CSS
http://photos.mikelanestudios.com/
Hi!
I see that there isn't any options for ordering a calendar with my pictures from prints & gifts. Could that be a new product to add do you think?
-Kaj
Hi Kaj,
It's something we'd love to have. We hope to, in the future. No promises on if or when. Stay tuned to dgrin, and our release notes blog, and be sure to find out first!
http://blogs.smugmug.com/release-notes/
Thanks for the feature request!
All the best,
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Am I the only one who would really like it if the save photo button were always there, even on protected galleries, as long as you were logged in and looking at your own page?
I've struggled with the rather artificial constraint of "categories" and "sub-categories" since I first started with S.M. Maybe my 5 years of working with pbase is blinding me to the possibilities, but I seem to frequently bump into the maximum three levels in the heirarchy as an obstacle. There's at least one gallery over on my pbase account that I just don't see any way of moving here because of this limitation.
Instead of trying to adapt my galleries to the S.M. concept, what's the possibility S.M. could implement an arbitrarily deep gallery nesting feature? Am I the only one who sees utility in a concept like: Equestrian --> Show Jumping --> Briarwood Farms --> Oct 10, 2005 --> Itty Bitty Class?? That's five levels, without even trying.
Or has it been there all along, and I just don't see it??
I'm not discounting the feature request, but one possible work-around is to collapse the hierarchy as follows:
Equestrian Show Jumping --> Briarwood Farms (Oct. 10, 2005) --> Itty Bitty Class.
I'm assuming that you won't have so many different types of equestrian categories that it's hard to just browse them so it's no big deal to just make each it's own category. And, I'm assuming that people don't need to browse all briarwood farms galleries, that they could just look at a list of all show jumping galleries to find the one they want. Just a suggestion.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
Hi, abh - thanks for posting. It's not artificial - it was actually designed that way after much thought and consideration. But we do appreciate you telling us how important more levels would be to you.
All the best,
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
I'd be curious to know what the thought process was -- i.e., pros, cons, etc. And especially why it was thought that an heirarchical structure controlled by the user (a la pbase) was considered to be not as good.
It came down to the number of clicks a viewer was willing / interested in making before he/she got to the photos.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
There's certainly some merit to your suggestion -- it's still a workaround to (what I perceive as) a limitation.
Use keywords to create a virtual heirarchy.
http://photos.mikelanestudios.com/
You mean how many clicks you think my viewer is interested in making. IMO, it would be better if you left that judgment to me.
Hey, don't get me wrong Andy, this isn't a complete show stopper -- I've been working around it for a coupla years.
The perfect solution would be keywords + virtual galleries + support in password protected forums where virtual galleries let's you define a gallery that is populated with the results of a keyword search, but other than that behaves just like a normal gallery. Man would lthat be powerful.
The first two (keywords + virtual galleries) would elegantly solve this problem. Keywords as it is today do not elegantly solve the problem - the resulting UI leaves a lot to be desired and a lot for the user tro figure out.
I asked for support in a password protected environment because most of my events must be protected. My work-around is to do multiple uploads which isn't that efficient for either smugmug or myself.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
That does sound interesting, but to be honest, I don't think that's the "perfect" solution, at least for for me. I can't seem to get my head past the point of seeing a three level heirarchy as an artifical barrier.
I have two requests...
- Could the cart be skinnable for pro users to remove the potential for confusion when customers go to buy an image and suddenly the UI changes from my favorite scheme to the standard black and white.
- Could there be a place, probably in dgrin, where we could look to see system status info...even at a very high level - say some servers are down or traffic/usage is unusually high. That way, when something acts wierd or the system slows to a crawl, we'll see if it's a known problem or not.
Thanks
It's been discussed a lot here on Dgrin. The cart can't be customized - we have to maintain total control over it for security and transacion reasons. Wish I had a better answer for you....
Thanks for the suggestions!
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Agreed. I'm trying to wrap my head around a virtual heirarchy system that would satisfy users like abh. It's not so much the ability to do it as that exists currently, it's the keywords UI that makes it tough IMHO. Maybe you and I could ponder this over PM and bring it to Onethumb and JT as a suggestion?
http://photos.mikelanestudios.com/
I've got a bunch of ideas for it. I'd be happy to discuss, maybe via my email in my profile. But, I'm only online once a day over a slow link until after New Year's so it will probably have to wait until then for me.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
I've got a vacation from 8 to 28 Jan but other than that we can discuss it via email (mine's in the bio too).
http://photos.mikelanestudios.com/
This started in the comments on the Pro Corner Blog, but I thought I'd add it to this list for some more exposure/comments.
We all know that SM's stance on color space is that your images should be in sRGB. This matters because you need it for display to most all browsers & (I think) EZ Prints doesn't properly handle non-sRGB images. Several of us do not normally work in sRGB (nor should we, in my and many others' opinions), but this can lead to display and printing problems when the images are uploaded before remembering to create some temp JPEGs converted to the sRGB space.
My suggestion would be for the SM backend to automatically convert images to sRGB if they're uploaded tagged as a different space. This would not only solve the problems caused by forgetting, but it would also mean that the conversion step before upload goes away too!
One improvement on this may be to not convert the original until print time - that way if EZ Prints or a future print vendor has a larger gamut printing capability, we won't have to re-upload all of our images...
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Just wondering if it is possible to have something other than the word 'proof' on the photos when watermarking them?
like maybe the © ,for example.
:lurk
Hi DF,
We have been asked this before and it's something we'd love to be able to offer. We hope to. No promises on if/when but thanks for telling us how important it is to you.
Keep an eye on our release notes blog for updates:
http://blogs.smugmug.com/release-notes/
Moved post to the Features Request thread.
All the best,
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter