I understand, but I can sit here and tell you we will have more internal discussions about it and give you false hope, or tell you that we will not be having anonymous comments so we can move to other discussions. I chose to tell you the later, and while it's not what you want to here , I think it's better than lying to you.
We don't want lies from you, we want lies from our anonymous commenters!
So while being truthful is nice, I'd love to hear WHY you guys make your bizarre (to me) decisions. I personally would never use a comment system that required me to log in through facebook or google. Wouldn't expect my visitors to do so either.
I understand, but I can sit here and tell you we will have more internal discussions about it and give you false hope, or tell you that we will not be having anonymous comments so we can move to other discussions. I chose to tell you the later, and while it's not what you want to here , I think it's better than lying to you.
And just to be clear, is the discussion about opening up commenting in password-protected galleries also over? If a member has password-protected galleries and has given the password(s) to certain people (perhaps their clients, perhaps family members who are helping with genealogy research), haven't those people "logged in"? In my case it's genealogy, and I know for sure that gramma and grampa aren't interested in getting FB or G+ accounts - one more thing they don't understand and don't want - just so they can comment on old family photos.
Where are the professional event photographers in this discussion? I recall several that said they used password-protected galleries to get comments from their clients, and that makes sense to me.
And just to be clear, is the discussion about opening up commenting in password-protected galleries also over? If a member has password-protected galleries and has given the password(s) to certain people (perhaps their clients, perhaps family members who are helping with genealogy research), haven't those people "logged in"? In my case it's genealogy, and I know for sure that gramma and grampa aren't interested in getting FB or G+ accounts - one more thing they don't understand and don't want - just so they can comment on old family photos.
And just to be clear, is the discussion about opening up commenting in password-protected galleries also over? If a member has password-protected galleries and has given the password(s) to certain people (perhaps their clients, perhaps family members who are helping with genealogy research), haven't those people "logged in"? In my case it's genealogy, and I know for sure that gramma and grampa aren't interested in getting FB or G+ accounts - one more thing they don't understand and don't want - just so they can comment on old family photos.
...
Silence is the result
I never got a lot of comments, but a few dozen I think.
Since this change, despite probably a 10 fold increase in image views over the last 6 months, I have received exactly one comment, and a few email messages (since I've instead encourged that).
Has there ever been a clear reason stated? I skimmed this thread and say "Security" and "pedophiles leaving disgusting comments". Was there ever a more clear reason stated?
Or is this it? Fear of pedophiles' comments, and a feeling that customers cannot review/delete as appropriate?
It's not exactly a solution to that, they could still leave messages, they can still get fairly anonymous accounts on the social media sites (how many facebook accounts are reported to be fake now? And Google is probably worse).
Was there some event/lawsuit?
On the face of it, it seems an over-reaction. It's not a deal killer for me, but it would be nice to hear if there is a backstory to it, to know that this feature was removed for good cause.
I consider visitors that enter a password on my site logged in. They should be able to comment on those
passworded galleries they now have access to. After all, I control that password. I do not control
passwords from any other site.
This is what is required of the visitor in order to leave a comment... Does anyone see a problem here?
Good grief. I didn't even know it was that bad. I thought they "just" had to log in w/ their own info, not that that wouldn't have been bad enough as the only option.
Good grief. I didn't even know it was that bad. I thought they "just" had to log in w/ their own info, not that that wouldn't have been bad enough as the only option.
Maybe someone with Facebook access needs to verify and open a help desk ticket, and maybe a different thread.
I went to apply for a job the other day and they said "you can use your linkedin profile". I clicked it and got a prompt that included that the 3rd party would be granted rights to "post updates" to my linkedin profile. Needless to say I didn't, but it is very interesting how these cross-party applications permit access. And scary. I suspect that this was an oversight, someone checked the wrong box, but it was kind of a serious oversight.
The above may be also. Or may be SM trying to harvest marketing data.
Maybe someone with Facebook access needs to verify and open a help desk ticket, and maybe a different thread.
I went to apply for a job the other day and they said "you can use your linkedin profile". I clicked it and got a prompt that included that the 3rd party would be granted rights to "post updates" to my linkedin profile. Needless to say I didn't, but it is very interesting how these cross-party applications permit access. And scary. I suspect that this was an oversight, someone checked the wrong box, but it was kind of a serious oversight.
The above may be also. Or may be SM trying to harvest marketing data.
This is the best reason I've heard so far as to why SM is requiring these log ins for comments. There's a lot of money to be made in selling this type of data.
This is the best reason I've heard so far as to why SM is requiring these log ins for comments. There's a lot of money to be made in selling this type of data.
We do not sell our customers private information. Never have. It is my understanding that it is pretty standard to ask for this information, see 2 posts above (the screenshot).
We do not sell our customers private information. Never have. It is my understanding that it is pretty standard to ask for this information, see 2 posts above (the screenshot).
It wouldn't be your customer's private information, just their list of friends and their friend's private information...
I'm only kidding of course. The point of oneuser's post shouldn't be lost, though. What visitors will see is that if they want to leave a comment on a photo, the cost to them is that SmugMug will receive their public profile and friends list. The basic_info stuff is irrelevant to this discussion. It just says that there is no option for SmugMug not to have access to this info - well, except for the option of not requiring a visitor to sign into one of these accounts to begin with. This is a failure on Facebook's end.
There is no way in hell that I'm going to give a random third party access to my profile and friends list, especially just to leave a comment on a photo - and I don't think this is an uncommon stance.
I need to pass along a question I received from a user / potential commenter: "If I sign in to Smugmug using my Facebook account (in order to leave a comment), what information does Facebook receive about my activity on Smugmug???" The user was concerned about their activity on Smugmug then being used by Facebook to target advertising, etc.
It is clear that mandatory sign in for comments will give Smugmug information about my visitors (though I'm not clear on how Smugmug might/might not use that info), but I've seen nothing on what information Facebook will glean from this.
Originally Posted by billw
And just to be clear, is the discussion about opening up commenting in password-protected galleries also over? If a member has password-protected galleries and has given the password(s) to certain people (perhaps their clients, perhaps family members who are helping with genealogy research), haven't those people "logged in"? In my case it's genealogy, and I know for sure that gramma and grampa aren't interested in getting FB or G+ accounts - one more thing they don't understand and don't want - just so they can comment on old family photos.
Originally Posted by Allen
I consider visitors that enter a password on my site logged in. They should be able to comment on those
passworded galleries they now have access to. After all, I control that password. I do not control
passwords from any other site.
Have to agree with everyone else who posted on this thread. I see no reason that anyone cannot comment unless they are "logged in" in some form or another. As long as the site owner has to approve the comment first then it shouldn't be an issue. I have many family members who don't have facebook accounts or use google who can't leave comments. For the price we pay for this service it should be a no-brainer to make anonymous commenting available. Most anyone who looks at my site wouldn't know it was smugmug anyway.
Originally Posted by billw
And just to be clear, is the discussion about opening up commenting in password-protected galleries also over? If a member has password-protected galleries and has given the password(s) to certain people (perhaps their clients, perhaps family members who are helping with genealogy research), haven't those people "logged in"? In my case it's genealogy, and I know for sure that gramma and grampa aren't interested in getting FB or G+ accounts - one more thing they don't understand and don't want - just so they can comment on old family photos.
Originally Posted by Allen
I consider visitors that enter a password on my site logged in. They should be able to comment on those
passworded galleries they now have access to. After all, I control that password. I do not control
passwords from any other site.
Originally Posted by billw
And just to be clear, is the discussion about opening up commenting in password-protected galleries also over? If a member has password-protected galleries and has given the password(s) to certain people (perhaps their clients, perhaps family members who are helping with genealogy research), haven't those people "logged in"? In my case it's genealogy, and I know for sure that gramma and grampa aren't interested in getting FB or G+ accounts - one more thing they don't understand and don't want - just so they can comment on old family photos.
Originally Posted by Allen
I consider visitors that enter a password on my site logged in. They should be able to comment on those
passworded galleries they now have access to. After all, I control that password. I do not control
passwords from any other site.
Honestly, I am probably going to look elsewhere unless this issue gets fixed in the next few months. I have ZERO comments due to this. Many people are telling me they cannot leave comments. Most of my family arent nor will join facebook. And many who are are not going to login just so they can leave a comment. As I'm slowly expanding into a business, this looks bad.
And from what I understand if you are in facebook, you may think twice about the information you hand over when you do choose to leave a comment!
I think, maybe, I believe that Smugmug is truly doing this because they are afraid of legal liability. But I hope they can understand why people may view this restriction as a way to harvest personal information of those commenting as well, and why that those people who might otherwise comment may be reluctant.
On Flickr I got thousands of comments and likes the time I was there, several every day. Here on SmugMug I have got – uh, five! None the last three months. I don’t say comments are among the most important things in life, but at least it’s nice to see that someone visits my site.
I mean really SM wth is your problem? We are PAYING CUSTOMERS and we CANT get what WE want on our sites!?!
Before we could allow comments - no problem, we could also set it up so WE decided if the comment got posted...WHY does Sm have a problem with this>
Seriously - the lack of a fix to get what we paying customers is driving this paying customer up the freakin wall! Its been almost a year for crying out loud!
They are becoming like Pbase. One of the reasons I left Pbase was because they wouldn't listen to their paying customers.
I have clients who want to leave comments/reviews but won't because of the requirement to log in. Which means that new prospects may not hire because of the lack of feedback. I pay for this why can't I decide how people leave comments!
I have a stamp collector site I share with a few other collectors.
We chat about stamps on the site. It is not open to the public. A password is required to log in.
In OLD SM there were several comments a day. In new SM (which I went to in 2013) there hasn't been a single comment.
My collector friends have told me they don't wish to bother with a second login just to leave a comment.
In OLD SM there were several comments a day. In new SM (which I went to in 2013) there hasn't been a single comment.
My collector friends have told me they don't wish to bother with a second login just to leave a comment.
Originally Posted by billw
And just to be clear, is the discussion about opening up commenting in password-protected galleries also over? If a member has password-protected galleries and has given the password(s) to certain people (perhaps their clients, perhaps family members who are helping with genealogy research), haven't those people "logged in"? In my case it's genealogy, and I know for sure that gramma and grampa aren't interested in getting FB or G+ accounts - one more thing they don't understand and don't want - just so they can comment on old family photos.
Originally Posted by Allen
I consider visitors that enter a password on my site logged in. They should be able to comment on those
passworded galleries they now have access to. After all, I control that password. I do not control
passwords from any other site.
In OLD SM there were several comments a day. In new SM (which I went to in 2013) there hasn't been a single comment.
My collector friends have told me they don't wish to bother with a second login just to leave a comment.
Originally Posted by billw
And just to be clear, is the discussion about opening up commenting in password-protected galleries also over? If a member has password-protected galleries and has given the password(s) to certain people (perhaps their clients, perhaps family members who are helping with genealogy research), haven't those people "logged in"? In my case it's genealogy, and I know for sure that gramma and grampa aren't interested in getting FB or G+ accounts - one more thing they don't understand and don't want - just so they can comment on old family photos.
Originally Posted by Allen
I consider visitors that enter a password on my site logged in. They should be able to comment on those
passworded galleries they now have access to. After all, I control that password. I do not control
passwords from any other site.
Comments
We don't want lies from you, we want lies from our anonymous commenters!
So while being truthful is nice, I'd love to hear WHY you guys make your bizarre (to me) decisions. I personally would never use a comment system that required me to log in through facebook or google. Wouldn't expect my visitors to do so either.
Dave
And just to be clear, is the discussion about opening up commenting in password-protected galleries also over? If a member has password-protected galleries and has given the password(s) to certain people (perhaps their clients, perhaps family members who are helping with genealogy research), haven't those people "logged in"? In my case it's genealogy, and I know for sure that gramma and grampa aren't interested in getting FB or G+ accounts - one more thing they don't understand and don't want - just so they can comment on old family photos.
Where are the professional event photographers in this discussion? I recall several that said they used password-protected galleries to get comments from their clients, and that makes sense to me.
Not everyone has (or wants) a FB or G+ account.
-- Bill
http://billw.smugmug.com
My Smugmug Site
My Website index | My Blog
I never got a lot of comments, but a few dozen I think.
Since this change, despite probably a 10 fold increase in image views over the last 6 months, I have received exactly one comment, and a few email messages (since I've instead encourged that).
Has there ever been a clear reason stated? I skimmed this thread and say "Security" and "pedophiles leaving disgusting comments". Was there ever a more clear reason stated?
Or is this it? Fear of pedophiles' comments, and a feeling that customers cannot review/delete as appropriate?
It's not exactly a solution to that, they could still leave messages, they can still get fairly anonymous accounts on the social media sites (how many facebook accounts are reported to be fake now? And Google is probably worse).
Was there some event/lawsuit?
On the face of it, it seems an over-reaction. It's not a deal killer for me, but it would be nice to hear if there is a backstory to it, to know that this feature was removed for good cause.
passworded galleries they now have access to. After all, I control that password. I do not control
passwords from any other site.
My Website index | My Blog
I don't do social media. Is that normal for sites with the "login via facebook" or an extra requirement Smugmug added?
Good grief. I didn't even know it was that bad. I thought they "just" had to log in w/ their own info, not that that wouldn't have been bad enough as the only option.
DayBreak, my Folk Music Group (some free mp3s!) http://daybreakfolk.com
Maybe someone with Facebook access needs to verify and open a help desk ticket, and maybe a different thread.
I went to apply for a job the other day and they said "you can use your linkedin profile". I clicked it and got a prompt that included that the 3rd party would be granted rights to "post updates" to my linkedin profile. Needless to say I didn't, but it is very interesting how these cross-party applications permit access. And scary. I suspect that this was an oversight, someone checked the wrong box, but it was kind of a serious oversight.
The above may be also. Or may be SM trying to harvest marketing data.
This is the best reason I've heard so far as to why SM is requiring these log ins for comments. There's a lot of money to be made in selling this type of data.
Support Hero
It wouldn't be your customer's private information, just their list of friends and their friend's private information...
I'm only kidding of course. The point of oneuser's post shouldn't be lost, though. What visitors will see is that if they want to leave a comment on a photo, the cost to them is that SmugMug will receive their public profile and friends list. The basic_info stuff is irrelevant to this discussion. It just says that there is no option for SmugMug not to have access to this info - well, except for the option of not requiring a visitor to sign into one of these accounts to begin with. This is a failure on Facebook's end.
There is no way in hell that I'm going to give a random third party access to my profile and friends list, especially just to leave a comment on a photo - and I don't think this is an uncommon stance.
It is clear that mandatory sign in for comments will give Smugmug information about my visitors (though I'm not clear on how Smugmug might/might not use that info), but I've seen nothing on what information Facebook will glean from this.
Keith
http://feedback.smugmug.com/forums/17723-smugmug/suggestions/4262376-remove-smugmug-facebook-log-in-requirements-for-co
My Smugmug Site
All comments have stopped since this login requirement.
Thanks for nothing.
Have a good day. :bwg
http://feedback.smugmug.com/forums/17723-smugmug/suggestions/4262376-remove-smugmug-facebook-log-in-requirements-for-co
My Smugmug Site
http://feedback.smugmug.com/forums/17723-smugmug/suggestions/4262376-remove-smugmug-facebook-log-in-requirements-for-co
My Smugmug Site
I think, maybe, I believe that Smugmug is truly doing this because they are afraid of legal liability. But I hope they can understand why people may view this restriction as a way to harvest personal information of those commenting as well, and why that those people who might otherwise comment may be reluctant.
I mean really SM wth is your problem? We are PAYING CUSTOMERS and we CANT get what WE want on our sites!?!
Before we could allow comments - no problem, we could also set it up so WE decided if the comment got posted...WHY does Sm have a problem with this>
Seriously - the lack of a fix to get what we paying customers is driving this paying customer up the freakin wall! Its been almost a year for crying out loud!
What did Cinderella say when she left the photo shop? "One day my prints will come."
I have clients who want to leave comments/reviews but won't because of the requirement to log in. Which means that new prospects may not hire because of the lack of feedback. I pay for this why can't I decide how people leave comments!
http://petapixel.com/2014/06/06/flickr-to-drop-google-and-facebook-login-options-at-end-of-the-month/
What did Cinderella say when she left the photo shop? "One day my prints will come."
I'm sorry, I don't understand the connection. Yahoo is requiring you have a Yahoo account and not accepting Facebook?
What I think people are clamoring for here are login-free comments, not any particular flavor.
I may have missed the relevant part of your referenced link, though... ?
I have a stamp collector site I share with a few other collectors.
We chat about stamps on the site. It is not open to the public. A password is required to log in.
In OLD SM there were several comments a day. In new SM (which I went to in 2013) there hasn't been a single comment.
My collector friends have told me they don't wish to bother with a second login just to leave a comment.
http://feedback.smugmug.com/forums/17723-smugmug/suggestions/4262376-remove-smugmug-facebook-log-in-requirements-for-co
My Smugmug Site
http://feedback.smugmug.com/forums/17723-smugmug/suggestions/4262376-remove-smugmug-facebook-log-in-requirements-for-co
My Smugmug Site