Thank you for sharing that link. Please read my reply below, and see if you agree that I've identified the issue. I'll also post it on your thread. I now see that it does not relate to the topic of this thread, and I]m fine with having it moved.
You are correct that your issues aren't related to the 301 redirect issue. I think the bug I reported is also different than the issue you raise. My bug ticket has to do with the fact that when you do a "Share --> Get a Link --> Gallery Links, most of the links don't contain an album key, so if you use those links, they aren't persistent anymore like they used to be in legacy smug. The only one with a persistent album key on it is the "slideshow" variation of the gallery link, which takes you to legacy slideshow...
So I think we've actually got a couple different bugs.
You are correct that your issues aren't related to the 301 redirect issue. I think the bug I reported is also different than the issue you raise. My bug ticket has to do with the fact that when you do a "Share --> Get a Link --> Gallery Links, most of the links don't contain an album key, so if you use those links, they aren't persistent anymore like they used to be in legacy smug. The only one with a persistent album key on it is the "slideshow" variation of the gallery link, which takes you to legacy slideshow...
So I think we've actually got a couple different bugs.
I think they're two sides of the same issue. The only additional info I have is that the persistent link is also in the "buy" gallery link, and it's actually in a more easily copy-able format.
My other issue with broken links, I now realize, is due to cases in which I used the "nicename" instead of the full URL. That is something I'll have to live with or fix one by one. Having a customizable 404 page also helps.
Baldy,
You asked for a case when users may NOT want name.smugmug.com to redirect to their page. I have an example ... although it's not one that effects me. At work, a number of websites are blocked unless specifically approved by our IT department. Somehow I got my domain added to the list so I have no problem. A co-worker of mine, on the other hand, doesn't have his un-blocked. He can get to his SmugMug page by going to his name.smugmug.com ... but any time he clicks a link, he has to change his URL (www.hisdomain.com/) back to his name.smugmug.com. SmugMug isn't blocked -- just his domain. If all his URLS stayed as name.smugmug.com then he wouldn't have to mess with the URL each time he loads a new page.
In my case, if a user accidently stumbled upon "aaronm.smugmug.com" I'd certainly want it redirected to www.aaronmphotography.com.
Baldy,
You asked for a case when users may NOT want name.smugmug.com to redirect to their page. I have an example ... although it's not one that effects me. At work, a number of websites are blocked unless specifically approved by our IT department. Somehow I got my domain added to the list so I have no problem. A co-worker of mine, on the other hand, doesn't have his un-blocked. He can get to his SmugMug page by going to his name.smugmug.com ... but any time he clicks a link, he has to change his URL (www.hisdomain.com/) back to his name.smugmug.com. SmugMug isn't blocked -- just his domain. If all his URLS stayed as name.smugmug.com then he wouldn't have to mess with the URL each time he loads a new page.
In my case, if a user accidently stumbled upon "aaronm.smugmug.com" I'd certainly want it redirected to www.aaronmphotography.com.
Just an example since you asked
Oh, thank you. I remember that now. One of the things we've worked on over the years is keeping our name unthreatening enough to IT corporations that the fewest number possible block us. There are all kinds of things bundled into that like keeping the nudity down, not allowing spam (anonymous comments), even javascripts on pages have raised flags.
I think I understand the issue thanks to some help from Hero Wendy and a little experimenting.
The problem comes from the fact that the Collage style (both L and P) perform differently from the way that SmugMug and Journal styles perform (Legacy and new). Along with half the universe, I have embraced those cool new styles, hence the problem.
In the SmugMug and journal style, the URL "galleryname/imagekey" returns the gallery page of the image associated with the key. This was the case with Legacy, and is also true in New. So if you're using one of those styles and make sure to capture the key when you share the URL, you're fine. A link to an image on the main gallery page has the same function as a link to the gallery.
The problem is, in Collage styles (and Thumbnails,) the URL "galleryname/imagekey" returns the lightbox view for that image, after briefly flashing on the gallery page. Users have to figure out that they can close the lightbox and see the full gallery.
Here's an illustration, using two galleries that have shortlinks to each other.
http://pictures.mtbethel.org/Ministry/Childrens/2012/Santa-Pictures-2012/i-p8j5bQv - Landscape Collage style gallery, link goes briefly to gallery page and then pops to lightbox page for that image. If you close the lightbox view and click on an image from the gallery page to go back to lightbox view, the resulting URL is galleryname/imagekey/A
I think Collage styles should function the same as the other styles, ie, galleryname/imagekey should return the gallery page containing the image, and galleryname/imagekey/A should return the page containing the lightbox image in all styles.
If not, then there needs to be a permanent "gallery key", just as each image has a key.
Update: Heroes just responded again (response time shortening quite a bit, yay!) and told me that there is a gallery key, and it's exposed as the "buy" link. Add that to the end of your gallery URL, and you can share with ease - either directly or with a link shortener. Feature request is in to make this gallery link part of the URL and Get a Link.
Thanks, GRBlizz, nice detective work. The new gallery styles have forced some tough decisions, as opposed to SmugMug style, where it's clear what to do when someone shares a link with a key in it. But on collage style, do you pop that image up in a lightbox or just show the gallery? There are people who argue opposing views on that.
Sorry about the short link feature not being exposed in new SmugMug. How important is that feature to you? We have a ticket filed to add it back, but we don't have it listed as a very high priority.
The new gallery styles have forced some tough decisions, as opposed to SmugMug style, where it's clear what to do when someone shares a link with a key in it. But on collage style, do you pop that image up in a lightbox or just show the gallery? There are people who argue opposing views on that.
Sorry about the short link feature not being exposed in new SmugMug. How important is that feature to you? We have a ticket filed to add it back, but we don't have it listed as a very high priority.
For me, I'm using SmugMug style galleries and the Share -> Get a Link -> Gallery Links is broken except for the "buy" link. It seems like it would be an easy fix to tack a persistent album key onto the links there so they would continue to work after I reorganize galleries and folders.
Thanks, GRBlizz, nice detective work. The new gallery styles have forced some tough decisions, as opposed to SmugMug style, where it's clear what to do when someone shares a link with a key in it. But on collage style, do you pop that image up in a lightbox or just show the gallery? There are people who argue opposing views on that.
Sorry about the short link feature not being exposed in new SmugMug. How important is that feature to you? We have a ticket filed to add it back, but we don't have it listed as a very high priority.
Thanks for replying. For some reason, I'm not getting my notification emails, so I just logged in and found this.
The answer to your question is: to me, it's extremely important that the gallery key be exposed, now that I understand that this is the only way for gallery links to survive reorganization.
I don't know how common my use case is, but I run my Pro SmugMug site as the photo gallery part of my community website. We post 3-4 galleries a week, and each of those galleries is also promoted with links on Facebook and in our blog. It's imperative that the links be persistent, because I learned to my horror that reorganizing breaks everything if that gallery key is not present.
So now, when I finish a gallery, I have to go through the cumbersome process of opening up an image's lightbox, choosing Get a Link, choosing Gallery, cutting the code from the Buy link, closing out, and pasting the buy link to the end of the gallery URL, and then quickly cutting the new link before it resolves (because that will make the key disappear) and pasting it where I want it. If I want it to look less threatening, I also need to open up smu.gs and create a shortlink.
Compare this to the Legacy process: Cut and paste the URL from the gallery. Use "shorten this link" if you need to expose the link so it looks nice. Poof. Next.
I think it's absolutely a bug, not a feature request, when users have to go through this level of complicated gyrations to get persistent links, when your new design literally begs people to more galleries around.
I think the reason more people aren't fussing about it is that they don't understand the trouble that they are in for if they reorganize and have shared links on websites or social media.
I hope to hear news of this soon. I love the customer usability of the new site, but my passion fades a little every time I have to go through this process.
The answer to your question is: to me, it's extremely important that the gallery key be exposed, now that I understand that this is the only way for gallery links to survive reorganization.
I agree with GRBlizz that it's very important that if I "get a link", I should get a link that will survive a folder reorganization. To reiterate, many people may not realize that those links are no longer safe to share or embed as is.
Having the urls that can survive any folder reorganisation is very important.
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 2
One amplification that may help with the SM techies: Our company website (like many) runs on the Wordpress platform. Wordpress keeps track of changes to the public url (they call it a slug, you call it a nicename) behind the scenes. So if I rename or recategorize a post, the URL changes, but the database still associates all past slugs to that post ID. All previously-shared links resolve to the new slug/URL. This is hugely important for SEO.
This all happens behind the scenes, so users don't have to include the post ID in what they share in order for the links to be persistent.
I will confess that this is how I thought SmugMug worked as well, until recently. This is why I initially mis-presented the issue. I wish it DID work this way, as I'd love to be able to use the nicename styles.
But in any case, now I know, and going forward, I just need a way to create a persistent link that doesn't involve so many extra steps.
I have read the whole topic but it's still not very clear to me... (sorry, I'm new in DNS, Java, etc and English is not my native language).
So please excuse my stupid question if I make you guys repeat, I just would like to make it simple to me:
I have been using Smugmug for a few years now and recently switched to the new Smugmug last month.
And just a couple of days ago, I finally decided to buy my own domain name (www).
Now I realize that when I look for my name on Google, my old Smugmug url shows up. Fine for me. But when clicking I would like this Smugmug url to change into my new www url in the browser nav bar (in order to have a professional look). I also have a couple of backlinks on the web with this old smugmug url which are impossible to update.
Can someone confirm this setting is not available yet wiht the new Smugmug?
Can be entered in the Guinness Book of World Records - 6 (six) years have passed!
People access your site through several different URLs. If, for example, your home page can be reached in multiple ways - for instance, http://example.com/home, http://home.example.com, or http://www.example.com - it's a good idea to pick one of those URLs as your preferred (canonical) destination, and use 301 redirects to send traffic from the other URLs to your preferred URL.
Comments
You are correct that your issues aren't related to the 301 redirect issue. I think the bug I reported is also different than the issue you raise. My bug ticket has to do with the fact that when you do a "Share --> Get a Link --> Gallery Links, most of the links don't contain an album key, so if you use those links, they aren't persistent anymore like they used to be in legacy smug. The only one with a persistent album key on it is the "slideshow" variation of the gallery link, which takes you to legacy slideshow...
So I think we've actually got a couple different bugs.
I think they're two sides of the same issue. The only additional info I have is that the persistent link is also in the "buy" gallery link, and it's actually in a more easily copy-able format.
My other issue with broken links, I now realize, is due to cases in which I used the "nicename" instead of the full URL. That is something I'll have to live with or fix one by one. Having a customizable 404 page also helps.
You asked for a case when users may NOT want name.smugmug.com to redirect to their page. I have an example ... although it's not one that effects me. At work, a number of websites are blocked unless specifically approved by our IT department. Somehow I got my domain added to the list so I have no problem. A co-worker of mine, on the other hand, doesn't have his un-blocked. He can get to his SmugMug page by going to his name.smugmug.com ... but any time he clicks a link, he has to change his URL (www.hisdomain.com/) back to his name.smugmug.com. SmugMug isn't blocked -- just his domain. If all his URLS stayed as name.smugmug.com then he wouldn't have to mess with the URL each time he loads a new page.
In my case, if a user accidently stumbled upon "aaronm.smugmug.com" I'd certainly want it redirected to www.aaronmphotography.com.
Just an example since you asked
Former SmugMug Product Team
aaron AT aaronmphotography DOT com
Website: http://www.aaronmphotography.com
My SmugMug CSS Customizations website: http://www.aaronmphotography.com/Customizations
Sorry about the short link feature not being exposed in new SmugMug. How important is that feature to you? We have a ticket filed to add it back, but we don't have it listed as a very high priority.
For me, I'm using SmugMug style galleries and the Share -> Get a Link -> Gallery Links is broken except for the "buy" link. It seems like it would be an easy fix to tack a persistent album key onto the links there so they would continue to work after I reorganize galleries and folders.
Thanks for replying. For some reason, I'm not getting my notification emails, so I just logged in and found this.
The answer to your question is: to me, it's extremely important that the gallery key be exposed, now that I understand that this is the only way for gallery links to survive reorganization.
I don't know how common my use case is, but I run my Pro SmugMug site as the photo gallery part of my community website. We post 3-4 galleries a week, and each of those galleries is also promoted with links on Facebook and in our blog. It's imperative that the links be persistent, because I learned to my horror that reorganizing breaks everything if that gallery key is not present.
So now, when I finish a gallery, I have to go through the cumbersome process of opening up an image's lightbox, choosing Get a Link, choosing Gallery, cutting the code from the Buy link, closing out, and pasting the buy link to the end of the gallery URL, and then quickly cutting the new link before it resolves (because that will make the key disappear) and pasting it where I want it. If I want it to look less threatening, I also need to open up smu.gs and create a shortlink.
Compare this to the Legacy process: Cut and paste the URL from the gallery. Use "shorten this link" if you need to expose the link so it looks nice. Poof. Next.
I think it's absolutely a bug, not a feature request, when users have to go through this level of complicated gyrations to get persistent links, when your new design literally begs people to more galleries around.
I think the reason more people aren't fussing about it is that they don't understand the trouble that they are in for if they reorganize and have shared links on websites or social media.
I hope to hear news of this soon. I love the customer usability of the new site, but my passion fades a little every time I have to go through this process.
I agree with GRBlizz that it's very important that if I "get a link", I should get a link that will survive a folder reorganization. To reiterate, many people may not realize that those links are no longer safe to share or embed as is.
Having the urls that can survive any folder reorganisation is very important.
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 2
Danielhaigh.com
One amplification that may help with the SM techies: Our company website (like many) runs on the Wordpress platform. Wordpress keeps track of changes to the public url (they call it a slug, you call it a nicename) behind the scenes. So if I rename or recategorize a post, the URL changes, but the database still associates all past slugs to that post ID. All previously-shared links resolve to the new slug/URL. This is hugely important for SEO.
This all happens behind the scenes, so users don't have to include the post ID in what they share in order for the links to be persistent.
I will confess that this is how I thought SmugMug worked as well, until recently. This is why I initially mis-presented the issue. I wish it DID work this way, as I'd love to be able to use the nicename styles.
But in any case, now I know, and going forward, I just need a way to create a persistent link that doesn't involve so many extra steps.
I have read the whole topic but it's still not very clear to me... (sorry, I'm new in DNS, Java, etc and English is not my native language).
So please excuse my stupid question if I make you guys repeat, I just would like to make it simple to me:
I have been using Smugmug for a few years now and recently switched to the new Smugmug last month.
And just a couple of days ago, I finally decided to buy my own domain name (www).
Now I realize that when I look for my name on Google, my old Smugmug url shows up. Fine for me. But when clicking I would like this Smugmug url to change into my new www url in the browser nav bar (in order to have a professional look). I also have a couple of backlinks on the web with this old smugmug url which are impossible to update.
Can someone confirm this setting is not available yet wiht the new Smugmug?
Thanks again for your help.
Sent from my Galaxy Note 8
Can be entered in the Guinness Book of World Records - 6 (six) years have passed!
- https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/93633
http://jchmphotography.smugmug.com/Misc/fun/Cover-Photos/i-jCfpSmm/0/X3/JCHM-1617-X3.jpg
Does a 301 redirects to your custom domain:
http://jchmportafolio.infoinnova.net/Misc/fun/Cover-Photos/i-jCfpSmm/0/X3/JCHM-1617-X3.jpg
Please check out my gallery of customisations for the New SmugMug, more to come!
Thanks, Yes it works. I didn't realize before. At least its a good step. Thanks again