Could you explain what you mean by "they were used as combiners"? I sure don't mean that I don't believe you... I just mean I'm having trouble thinking of an example, so I can't think what you're referring to exactly. I just wanna know because I'm having to think hard about making galleries or what-have-you on Legacy. (what to call them, how to keyword them, etc. etc.)
Legacy site
Picked yardbirds KW
http://www.photosbyat.com/keyword/yardbirds
Then in the "combine with:" picked juncos
This is the new link. See the dash they use between the combined KW's?
http://www.photosbyat.com/keyword/yardbirds-juncos
1. Clicking on "boat" keyword under an image of a boat gives me 1168 images (which is better than the 1000 previous). If I go to the SEARCH page and enter "boat" and have the Photo icon highlighted, I get 2644 images found. Would this be because perhaps I don't have a keyword "boat" in half those images and the SEARCH is finding "boat" maybe in the caption?
2. So, a RESULT of a keyword search will find up to 5000 images. But what about the limit of keywords to 200?
Obviously, using SEARCH for the term seems much better than the actual keyword.
EDIT: Ok, item 2 is in another thread...my bad. But related. Which btw, I see only 100 keywords listed on my /keyword (PREVIEW site).
A click on my keyword "_all_pictures" gets me a total of 4707. Getting close to the end again!
Also stretchy mode does not look good on the keyword list but it is attached to the keyword search results which you do want stretchy.
We need a way to make the keyword list fixed but without affecting the search results being stretchy.
Dennis, do you have a keyword called "_all_pictures" in each of your images? Or am I missing something?
I have my name as a keyword in all my images (20,000+). If I go to an image and click on my keyword name, I hit the 5000 wall. Highly doubtable someone would come to my site and use my name for a keyword search as they ALREADY are on my site of images! Still wonder what decision tree SM uses to display those 5000 and which 15,000 they do not.
Dennis, do you have a keyword called "_all_pictures" in each of your images? Or am I missing something?
I have my name as a keyword in all my images (20,000+). If I go to an image and click on my keyword name, I hit the 5000 wall. Highly doubtable someone would come to my site and use my name for a keyword search as they ALREADY are on my site of images! Still wonder what decision tree SM uses to display those 5000 and which 15,000 they do not.
I link the keyword "_all_pictures" to the recent tab on my drop down menu.
I put the keyword "_all_pictures" in the pictures I want to be seen with that search.
I keep a separate folder for the print sized pictures and this keeps me from getting duplicates in the list.
They seem to be sorted by newest first.
1. Clicking on "boat" keyword under an image of a boat gives me 1168 images (which is better than the 1000 previous). If I go to the SEARCH page and enter "boat" and have the Photo icon highlighted, I get 2644 images found. Would this be because perhaps I don't have a keyword "boat" in half those images and the SEARCH is finding "boat" maybe in the caption?
2. So, a RESULT of a keyword search will find up to 5000 images. But what about the limit of keywords to 200?
Obviously, using SEARCH for the term seems much better than the actual keyword.
EDIT: Ok, item 2 is in another thread...my bad. But related. Which btw, I see only 100 keywords listed on my /keyword (PREVIEW site).
Yes, your "Boat" search results search more than just your keywords. A specific example in those results without the keyword "Boat" would help show this.
I link the keyword "_all_pictures" to the recent tab on my drop down menu.
I put the keyword "_all_pictures" in the pictures I want to be seen with that search.
I keep a separate folder for the print sized pictures and this keeps me from getting duplicates in the list.
They seem to be sorted by newest first.
I could use a bump up up 10,000.
Cheers,
Dennis,
I can look into this, but when we start looking into cases like this, it's a very edge case, and in my opinion is not the intended purpose of keywords, which is to take a large number of images, and narrow them down.
I can look into this, but when we start looking into cases like this, it's a very edge case, and in my opinion is not the intended purpose of keywords, which is to take a large number of images, and narrow them down.
Thanks,
What would really be nice is if the Gallery Slideshow had a Random option.
I could choose the keyword "_all_pictures" and have a random slideshow of all my pictures!
Yes, your "Boat" search results search more than just your keywords. A specific example in those results without the keyword "Boat" would help show this.
Ok. Makes sense. I will have to look. Will be pretty easy since half the "search finds" must not have a "boat" keyword. Strange that I would have missed entering that in that many images - but must be. This looks like my bad.
EDIT: Back in the old days I would have whipped up a routine to find all images with "boat" in the caption AND NOT in the keyword list for that image - Boolean stuff! Guess SM doesn't have a way to do that? That actually could be useful for all folks to help better their keyword lists to match words in the captions. Could be in the "Tools" section.
Originally Posted by dennismullen View Post
I link the keyword "_all_pictures" to the recent tab on my drop down menu.
I put the keyword "_all_pictures" in the pictures I want to be seen with that search.
I keep a separate folder for the print sized pictures and this keeps me from getting duplicates in the list.
They seem to be sorted by newest first.
I can look into this, but when we start looking into cases like this, it's a very edge case, and in my opinion is not the intended purpose of keywords, which is to take a large number of images, and narrow them down.
I need the bump, too. HOWEVER, why is there a limit? There already are two methods AFTER searching on a keyword to knock down the list of images FOUND further. One is the RELATED keywords and the other is COMBINE by clicking on one of the +keywords that are listed? The current method now limiting to 5000 misses alot of images for folks who have thousands of images. What internal thing (computer resources?) makes this a "very edge case"? Not being a smartie, just really wonder the reasons for this.
I am glad y'all listened and bumped to 5000 -thanks! IMHO, though, a limit is still there and the thread is not really "Completed". It's better.
I need the bump, too. HOWEVER, why is there a limit? There already are two methods AFTER searching on a keyword to knock down the list of images FOUND further. One is the RELATED keywords and the other is COMBINE by clicking on one of the +keywords that are listed? The current method now limiting to 5000 misses alot of images for folks who have thousands of images. What internal thing (computer resources?) makes this a "very edge case"? Not being a smartie, just really wonder the reasons for this.
I am glad y'all listened and bumped to 5000 -thanks! IMHO, though, a limit is still there and the thread is not really "Completed". It's better.
I'm with you. I have some keywords with well over 5000 images associated with them. They are not unintended uses of keywords, like keywords that apply to all images or something. The 5000 limit sure beats the 1000 limit, but as an example I have 11,287 images of parachutes landing on my site. I have 30,554 images taken at a certain location. These go back to 2006. Combining the keywords for parachutes landing at that particular location, the 5000 image limit only shows results back to 2010. And every week that 5000 limit is going to pull that end date closer and closer.
I want my visitors to be able to find all my images, not just some of my images. If they use search instead of keywords, there are 10,575 results. But those results contain extraneous images since it looks at captions, not just keywords. And it only seems to display in the non-paginated, slow, hard to use search results page. I gave up on trying to get to the bottom.
So let keyword galleries show all the results, not some subset of results. Don't give us unlimited storage and then act like we shouldn't use it. I've been carefully captioning and keywording my images weekly since I joined smugmug in 2006. Limits like this make me feel like I've wasted a lot of time.
Yahoo! Keep this alive! Still waiting for the actual reasons that this was limited. May be that there is a resource problem. Somehow doubt that it would occur too often. Keep those +1's coming! Thanks!
Yahoo! Keep this alive! Still waiting for the actual reasons that this was limited. May be that there is a resource problem. Somehow doubt that it would occur too often. Keep those +1's coming! Thanks!
We feel a page with 5,000 photos on it is more than enough for 99.9% of the SmugMug user base. That is our reason.
I can look into this, but when we start looking into cases like this, it's a very edge case, and in my opinion is not the intended purpose of keywords, which is to take a large number of images, and narrow them down.
We feel a page with 5,000 photos on it is more than enough for 99.9% of the SmugMug user base. That is our reason.
Fair enough (but not my opinion or apparently a few others of us). Thought it was a server resources issue, but it seems to be just a "feeling". Ok, then. Next question - how does the programming decide which 5000 to show if there are more than 5000? Truly want to understand how this is decided program wise.
Also, if the programming detects more than 5000 is it possible for SM to inject a message saying there are more than 5000 images matching the keyword and the user may want to add more keywords with a "+" between them? Maybe give an example? While WE understand this, the general public may not. Right now it gives the impression that there are no more images available beyond the 5000. Thanks, hope this does not seem like I am whining.
Fair enough (but not my opinion or apparently a few others of us). Thought it was a server resources issue, but it seems to be just a "feeling". Ok, then. Next question - how does the programming decide which 5000 to show if there are more than 5000? Truly want to understand how this is decided program wise.
Also, if the programming detects more than 5000 is it possible for SM to inject a message saying there are more than 5000 images matching the keyword and the user may want to add more keywords with a "+" between them? Maybe give an example? While WE understand this, the general public may not. Right now it gives the impression that there are no more images available beyond the 5000. Thanks, hope this does not seem like I am whining.
I am not entirely sure of the exact answers. But do you you have any of these 5,000+ keyword galleries? Does anyone? I don't think so at this time. And if you do have them, how often out of your hundreds of keywords listed is someone going to actually click on that keyword?
My point is, this is a very very very edge case, that to my knowledge, no one has even hit yet. We haven't had one question about this on our help desk. So there is a couple people out of all our customers that may run into this in the future, and even then it will be a very edge case to have your visitors even hit that page. And I don't know about anyone else, but if I hit a webpage with 5,000 photos on it, I'm probably gonna make it through 10 before I go elsewhere.
I guess my point is, you guys have alot of feature requests and bugs that you feel are a higher priority than this. Every time I come here to answer, it delays me from submitting another request or bug to my team.
So I am saying, lets wait until a good amount of people have over 5,000 photos in a keyword gallery and we can then discuss. Until then I think our work and conversations can be much more valuable elsewhere.
I'm with you. I have some keywords with well over 5000 images associated with them. They are not unintended uses of keywords, like keywords that apply to all images or something. The 5000 limit sure beats the 1000 limit, but as an example I have 11,287 images of parachutes landing on my site. I have 30,554 images taken at a certain location. These go back to 2006. Combining the keywords for parachutes landing at that particular location, the 5000 image limit only shows results back to 2010. And every week that 5000 limit is going to pull that end date closer and closer.
I want my visitors to be able to find all my images, not just some of my images. If they use search instead of keywords, there are 10,575 results. But those results contain extraneous images since it looks at captions, not just keywords. And it only seems to display in the non-paginated, slow, hard to use search results page. I gave up on trying to get to the bottom.
So let keyword galleries show all the results, not some subset of results. Don't give us unlimited storage and then act like we shouldn't use it. I've been carefully captioning and keywording my images weekly since I joined smugmug in 2006. Limits like this make me feel like I've wasted a lot of time.
Dave
Above quote is an example you were looking for. Yes, I do have galleries both approaching the 5000 mark and some over the mark. And the quoted above does, too. As a $300/yr user, yes, I feel my request is important. Yes, I realize that it is a lower priority from some of the other issues or functions that were removed. Don't get mad at me, but since this is important to me and others, it should be treated as such. Part of the issue is that we cannot get an answer (and you admitted you did not know) as to why SM is limiting this. If they have a resources issue that swamps the server during a keyword request which returns more than 5000 - that I can understand. A "feeling" I cannot. I kinda resent your inferring I am wasting your time.
Please don't get mad. I think you have been helping us tremendously in many ways - and more than most of the Heroes. If this is something I should be asking the help desk at SmugMug vs Heroes, please let me know and I will understand that. Perhaps SM is not telling you their reasoning.
BTW, when clicking on the url in my emil to get to this thread, it said something like I was no longer monitoring this thread. Seems it was a glitch. I went back to the email and clicked it again and it worked fine.
Yes. It is a resource issue. I understand it is important to you. But system performance is important to alot of other customers and limiting these results to 5,000 helps system performance
The largest I can find on my site is "sandpipers" with 3509 but I only started about seven years ago.
My total individual KW's are around 840 and hopefully rising as I find new species.
I heard some folks tag just about everything to run in slideshows.
Yes. It is a resource issue. I understand it is important to you. But system performance is important to alot of other customers and limiting these results to 5,000 helps system performance
I can see this if someones using it for slideshow source but I can't ever imagine a very large KW being
clicked very often.
I ended up using Excel to parse out to columns so I could place the name into to link. Then add the +'s for space between multiple word KW's.
The whole thing would of been much easier and very much faster if I stated with excel adding all the segments into
columns and then &ing them back together. The 800+ would of been done in minutes.
Allan, I'm pretty darn good with Excel but I can't figure out where you got the original code to paste in it.
Allan, I'm pretty darn good with Excel but I can't figure out where you got the original code to paste in it....
In legacy on my /keyword page, I dragged my mouse down the keyword list to highlight them. Copy/paste into notepad.
Paste as text into Excel. Parsed the one cell into columns using the separator to single KW cells.
Highlight row, copy then "paste special - Transpose into bunch of rows.
Added each piece of the link in columns and "&" them together.
In legacy on my /keyword page, I dragged my mouse down the keyword list to highlight them. Copy/paste into notepad.
Paste as text into Excel. Parsed the one cell into columns using the separator to single KW cells.
Highlight row, copy then "paste special - Transpose into bunch of rows.
Added each piece of the link in columns and "&" them together.
Thank you but I'm stoppered on the first task, as copy/paste pastes only the values (words) into notepad, not the html links. Also the dots, oddly enough. Are you viewing source for this "drag mouse down the keyword list"? If so, my source adds all the other garbage I gave a snippet of.
Thank you but I'm stoppered on the first task, as copy/paste pastes only the values (words) into notepad, not the html links. Also the dots, oddly enough. Are you viewing source for this "drag mouse down the keyword list"? If so, my source adds all the other garbage I gave a snippet of.
The dots are important because they are used to parse the one cell text pasted into Excel into
individual cells in Excel. Then the individaul cells in the row are transposed into a column.
Once you have copied the "text" from the keyword list it just a matter of adding a + between
multi-words for the link. Copy KW column to 2nd column, add +'s. Search/replace space with + on column.
Comments
Picked yardbirds KW
http://www.photosbyat.com/keyword/yardbirds
Then in the "combine with:" picked juncos
This is the new link. See the dash they use between the combined KW's?
http://www.photosbyat.com/keyword/yardbirds-juncos
My Website index | My Blog
1. Clicking on "boat" keyword under an image of a boat gives me 1168 images (which is better than the 1000 previous). If I go to the SEARCH page and enter "boat" and have the Photo icon highlighted, I get 2644 images found. Would this be because perhaps I don't have a keyword "boat" in half those images and the SEARCH is finding "boat" maybe in the caption?
2. So, a RESULT of a keyword search will find up to 5000 images. But what about the limit of keywords to 200?
Obviously, using SEARCH for the term seems much better than the actual keyword.
EDIT: Ok, item 2 is in another thread...my bad. But related. Which btw, I see only 100 keywords listed on my /keyword (PREVIEW site).
Also stretchy mode does not look good on the keyword list but it is attached to the keyword search results which you do want stretchy.
We need a way to make the keyword list fixed but without affecting the search results being stretchy.
Cheers,
I have my name as a keyword in all my images (20,000+). If I go to an image and click on my keyword name, I hit the 5000 wall. Highly doubtable someone would come to my site and use my name for a keyword search as they ALREADY are on my site of images! Still wonder what decision tree SM uses to display those 5000 and which 15,000 they do not.
I link the keyword "_all_pictures" to the recent tab on my drop down menu.
I put the keyword "_all_pictures" in the pictures I want to be seen with that search.
I keep a separate folder for the print sized pictures and this keeps me from getting duplicates in the list.
They seem to be sorted by newest first.
I could use a bump up up 10,000.
Cheers,
Yes, your "Boat" search results search more than just your keywords. A specific example in those results without the keyword "Boat" would help show this.
Facebook
Google+
Twitter
Photo Blog
Dennis,
I can look into this, but when we start looking into cases like this, it's a very edge case, and in my opinion is not the intended purpose of keywords, which is to take a large number of images, and narrow them down.
Facebook
Google+
Twitter
Photo Blog
Thanks,
What would really be nice is if the Gallery Slideshow had a Random option.
I could choose the keyword "_all_pictures" and have a random slideshow of all my pictures!
Cheers,
Ok. Makes sense. I will have to look. Will be pretty easy since half the "search finds" must not have a "boat" keyword. Strange that I would have missed entering that in that many images - but must be. This looks like my bad.
EDIT: Back in the old days I would have whipped up a routine to find all images with "boat" in the caption AND NOT in the keyword list for that image - Boolean stuff! Guess SM doesn't have a way to do that? That actually could be useful for all folks to help better their keyword lists to match words in the captions. Could be in the "Tools" section.
I need the bump, too. HOWEVER, why is there a limit? There already are two methods AFTER searching on a keyword to knock down the list of images FOUND further. One is the RELATED keywords and the other is COMBINE by clicking on one of the +keywords that are listed? The current method now limiting to 5000 misses alot of images for folks who have thousands of images. What internal thing (computer resources?) makes this a "very edge case"? Not being a smartie, just really wonder the reasons for this.
I am glad y'all listened and bumped to 5000 -thanks! IMHO, though, a limit is still there and the thread is not really "Completed". It's better.
I'm with you. I have some keywords with well over 5000 images associated with them. They are not unintended uses of keywords, like keywords that apply to all images or something. The 5000 limit sure beats the 1000 limit, but as an example I have 11,287 images of parachutes landing on my site. I have 30,554 images taken at a certain location. These go back to 2006. Combining the keywords for parachutes landing at that particular location, the 5000 image limit only shows results back to 2010. And every week that 5000 limit is going to pull that end date closer and closer.
I want my visitors to be able to find all my images, not just some of my images. If they use search instead of keywords, there are 10,575 results. But those results contain extraneous images since it looks at captions, not just keywords. And it only seems to display in the non-paginated, slow, hard to use search results page. I gave up on trying to get to the bottom.
So let keyword galleries show all the results, not some subset of results. Don't give us unlimited storage and then act like we shouldn't use it. I've been carefully captioning and keywording my images weekly since I joined smugmug in 2006. Limits like this make me feel like I've wasted a lot of time.
Dave
My Website index | My Blog
We feel a page with 5,000 photos on it is more than enough for 99.9% of the SmugMug user base. That is our reason.
Facebook
Google+
Twitter
Photo Blog
Fair enough (but not my opinion or apparently a few others of us). Thought it was a server resources issue, but it seems to be just a "feeling". Ok, then. Next question - how does the programming decide which 5000 to show if there are more than 5000? Truly want to understand how this is decided program wise.
Also, if the programming detects more than 5000 is it possible for SM to inject a message saying there are more than 5000 images matching the keyword and the user may want to add more keywords with a "+" between them? Maybe give an example? While WE understand this, the general public may not. Right now it gives the impression that there are no more images available beyond the 5000. Thanks, hope this does not seem like I am whining.
I am not entirely sure of the exact answers. But do you you have any of these 5,000+ keyword galleries? Does anyone? I don't think so at this time. And if you do have them, how often out of your hundreds of keywords listed is someone going to actually click on that keyword?
My point is, this is a very very very edge case, that to my knowledge, no one has even hit yet. We haven't had one question about this on our help desk. So there is a couple people out of all our customers that may run into this in the future, and even then it will be a very edge case to have your visitors even hit that page. And I don't know about anyone else, but if I hit a webpage with 5,000 photos on it, I'm probably gonna make it through 10 before I go elsewhere.
I guess my point is, you guys have alot of feature requests and bugs that you feel are a higher priority than this. Every time I come here to answer, it delays me from submitting another request or bug to my team.
So I am saying, lets wait until a good amount of people have over 5,000 photos in a keyword gallery and we can then discuss. Until then I think our work and conversations can be much more valuable elsewhere.
Facebook
Google+
Twitter
Photo Blog
Above quote is an example you were looking for. Yes, I do have galleries both approaching the 5000 mark and some over the mark. And the quoted above does, too. As a $300/yr user, yes, I feel my request is important. Yes, I realize that it is a lower priority from some of the other issues or functions that were removed. Don't get mad at me, but since this is important to me and others, it should be treated as such. Part of the issue is that we cannot get an answer (and you admitted you did not know) as to why SM is limiting this. If they have a resources issue that swamps the server during a keyword request which returns more than 5000 - that I can understand. A "feeling" I cannot. I kinda resent your inferring I am wasting your time.
Please don't get mad. I think you have been helping us tremendously in many ways - and more than most of the Heroes. If this is something I should be asking the help desk at SmugMug vs Heroes, please let me know and I will understand that. Perhaps SM is not telling you their reasoning.
BTW, when clicking on the url in my emil to get to this thread, it said something like I was no longer monitoring this thread.
Facebook
Google+
Twitter
Photo Blog
My total individual KW's are around 840 and hopefully rising as I find new species.
I heard some folks tag just about everything to run in slideshows.
My Website index | My Blog
clicked very often.
My Website index | My Blog
The only thing there now is the useless 255 limit cloud box.
Even a smart gallery setup selection has the 255 KW list to pick from.
BTW, who selects what KW's to show in that 255?
My Website index | My Blog
Allan, I'm pretty darn good with Excel but I can't figure out where you got the original code to paste in it.
A bit of your code looks like this: .
A bit of my code looks like this:
Where or how did you obtain just the href and keyword code?
And can you say what exactly you did in Excel?
Thanks.
Paste as text into Excel. Parsed the one cell into columns using the separator to single KW cells.
Highlight row, copy then "paste special - Transpose into bunch of rows.
Added each piece of the link in columns and "&" them together.
My Website index | My Blog
Thank you but I'm stoppered on the first task, as copy/paste pastes only the values (words) into notepad, not the html links. Also the dots, oddly enough. Are you viewing source for this "drag mouse down the keyword list"? If so, my source adds all the other garbage I gave a snippet of.
individual cells in Excel. Then the individaul cells in the row are transposed into a column.
Once you have copied the "text" from the keyword list it just a matter of adding a + between
multi-words for the link. Copy KW column to 2nd column, add +'s. Search/replace space with + on column.
...... column 1 ..... .. col 2 ...... 3 ... col 4 ...... ............. column 5 ...............................
<a href="/keyword/word1+word2">word1 word2</a><span style="color: yellow;">•</span>
"&" these all together
My Website index | My Blog
Shaking my head over here. I've done some fancy concatenate formulas in Excel - really, I have.
But how did you do this part?
WAIT, got it! Text to columns. TahDah. Let me continue on here.