SM footer link no longer hidden

beardedgit · February 12, 2014

Title says it all really. For months I've been hiding it with CSS, today that code doesn't work.

Anybody else seeing this?

mbonocore · February 12, 2014

Bearded, we do not allow you to hide the "Photo Sharing By SmugMug" text in the footer.

beardedgit · February 12, 2014

Understood. I'll get rid of my hiding-code

It's a good indicator of where SM's priorities lie - I see SM have plenty of time to hunt-down and counter any hiding-code but not enough time to fix broken stuff such as the Replace Photo bug. For me it's the last straw, I expect better service than that. I'll be off your back soon, I doubt that I'll be missed.

mbonocore · February 12, 2014

SM footer link no longer hidden
You underestimate me. I would miss you Bearded. I rather enjoy our banter, believe it or not

beardedgit · February 12, 2014

On the contrary, I believe that I've overestimated you.

Actions speak louder than words.

tomoscott · February 12, 2014

mbonocore wrote: »

Bearded, we do not allow you to hide the "Photo Sharing By SmugMug" text in the footer.

I would love to hear an explanation for this. Shopify and most sites I know of that allow you to use your own domain don't force their own branding on you. Is it for SEO? Or advertising dollars? I just don't get the cost-benefit equation here.

Sure, you gain something, I guess, by forcing every site to have your branding on it. But you lose something to, specifically the good will of your customers. If you want to force branding, fine, then go all the way like Fine Art America and don't allow private domains. But if you want to give the appearance of complete customization, especially for pro customers, then go all the way as well.

Ferguson · February 12, 2014

tomoscott wrote: »

Sure, you gain something, I guess, by forcing every site to have your branding on it. But you lose something to, specifically the good will of your customers.

I would love to know one aspect of the math.

My GUESS is that 99.9% of your customers (maybe another 9) leave it alone. You probably had whole dozens of customers who went to the trouble to hide it.

I didn't even exactly hide it, I left it saying "Smugmug" but changed it into a login prompt, which for people who don't want to log in also ends up leading them to Smugmug.

Yes, you say you don't allow it. But there was (as argued by at least one of your ex employees, yes I realize "ex") a nice accommodation -- it wasn't allowed, but it wasn't a battle you fought, 99.9% of your customers had no impact, and 0.1% were happier campers.

Is there really value in going after the 0.1%? Am I wrong about the proportion, did magic happen and huge percentages were hiding the words "Smugmug"?

It just comes across as petty - especially when so many other things are broken and/or missing.

And... all it's going to do is escalate, some of those more clever than I will find a workaround, which you will then spend effort chasing down.

Just seems pointless. Most of us are reasonable people -- is there some explanation that might make this more understandable?

mishenka · February 12, 2014

SmugMug, Michael,
We've been through this before: footer blog. So many words, Freudian, technical, and, to some degree, legal discussions. Smugmug's redesigned website, all promotional and advertisement materials are still referring to "Deep Customization", to "Make It Personal. Other companies restrict you to templates. We give you complete control over your site design, so you can be you." etc. How exactly you are promising "personal" website and impose your brand on me?

Carosu · February 12, 2014

This annoys me so much it's beyond explanation lol

I have to agree with everything Mishenka said. I for one subscribed on smugmug because I wanted full control of my site and to customize it like I want to not to have some branding thrown on me.

One lost costumer...

LPC · February 12, 2014

Smugmug you are so dumb sometimes it's astonishing

mbonocore · February 12, 2014

Thank you kindly for your feedback everyone. I understand your point of views. But besides a very short limited time in our products history, we have never allowed you to remove or hide the footer. So this is nothing new.

tomoscott · February 12, 2014

mbonocore wrote: »

Thank you kindly for your feedback everyone. I understand your point of views. But besides a very short limited time in our products history, we have never allowed you to remove or hide the footer. So this is nothing new.

The fact that it's nothing new is irrelevant. It was certainly new to me, because I took you at your word when you promise on your home page that pro users would have complete control over their site.

It also has no bearing on the discussion of whether this is a good policy or a half-assed one. You may think you are reaping rewards from forcing branding on your customers, but they are minor compared to the aggravation this policy is causing. Have you even counted the number of people who have turned off the footer? I bet it's 1% or less of your customer base. If it's that small, why spend resources and time enforcing this policy? And if it's much larger than that, that's even more of a reason to reconsider the policy.

No one from SM has presented any coherent argument whatsoever for this policy, other than "that's the way it's been in the past."

mbonocore · February 12, 2014

tomoscott wrote: »

The fact that it's nothing new is irrelevant. It was certainly new to me, because I took you at your word when you promise on your home page that pro users would have complete control over their site.

It also has no bearing on the discussion of whether this is a good policy or a half-assed one. You may think you are reaping rewards from forcing branding on your customers, but they are minor compared to the aggravation this policy is causing. Have you even counted the number of people who have turned off the footer? I bet it's 1% or less of your customer base. If it's that small, why spend resources and time enforcing this policy? And if it's much larger than that, that's even more of a reason to reconsider the policy.

No one from SM has presented any coherent argument whatsoever for this policy, other than "that's the way it's been in the past."

Like Ford, Nike, and Canon, we're very proud of the work we've done, and need to protect our brand, our copyright, and our hard work. We currently do not have a pricing model to allow a totally unbranded SmugMug site (which would likely be very expensive).

mishenka · February 12, 2014

mbonocore wrote: »

Like Ford, Nike, and Canon, we're very proud of the work we've done, and need to protect our brand, our copyright, and our hard work. We currently do not have a pricing model to allow a totally unbranded SmugMug site (which would likely be very expensive).

Then why are you advertising "Make It Personal. Other companies restrict you to templates. We give you complete control over your site design, so you can be you."? Why are you promising customers something that you know in advance is not true? "... Personal.... you can be you" does not work in conjunction with YOUR branding on my gallery page.

When I buy Ford, Nike or Canon - I am buying exactly what is advertised and I know it before I am paying for a product. You advertise a specific ONLINE GALLERY/PORTFOLIO service and you advertise it in a very specific way that is unequivocally makes (and have made) me believe that I am getting webpage entirely reflecting MY brand and MY work. Other similar services do not even pretend to provide an online portfolio service that you can brand: Google, Yahoo, etc. They all are very clear on the fact that MY images will be displayed under THEIR branding. SmugMug, on the other end, advertises an opposite.... and then, in the forum, informs of this little tiny thing: by the way, SMUGMUG branding is goign to be on every page:)

Do you not see it this way?

tomoscott · February 12, 2014

mbonocore wrote: »

Like Ford, Nike, and Canon, we're very proud of the work we've done, and need to protect our brand, our copyright, and our hard work. We currently do not have a pricing model to allow a totally unbranded SmugMug site (which would likely be very expensive).

What exactly are you copyrighting on our sites? I'm pretty sure you can't copyright your designs. Ford, Nike, and Canon are not in the business of selling web hosting platforms. You are. But if you want to use Canon as an example, your branding argument is roughly the equivalent of Canon insisting on some sort of logo on each picture made with a Canon camera, e.g., "Photo by Canon". You can imagine how well that would go over!

I have no argument with protecting your hard work. But this policy does not do that. Instead of getting people to talk about how great your work is, you are getting people to talk about your enforcement of a petty policy.

I'm in the apparel business, and we do a lot of private label business for major customers. We do a lot of the design and take care of all the manufacturing. But our brand name can't go anywhere on the garment, not even on the care tag. The stores who hire us want to promote their brand, not ours. Respecting that wish is not responsible for building our business, but not respecting would certainly end it quickly.

I just don't get why you wouldn't want your customers to brag about what a great platform SmugMug is, and how great you are to work with. I used to do that on Reddit in the photographers form. Now I'm far less likely to do that.

It sounds to me like you're cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Ferguson · February 12, 2014

mbonocore wrote: »

Thank you kindly for your feedback everyone. I understand your point of views. But besides a very short limited time in our products history, we have never allowed you to remove or hide the footer. So this is nothing new.

You have (almost) always had a policy that one cannot hide it, but you have for many, many years permitted it to be hidden with simple workarounds. It was certainly viewed as a "with a wink and a nod". No one ever came after those workarounds and tried to turn them off, despite it being far from a secret, but well documented.

What is new is someone actively taking technical actions to prevent such workarounds.

I do not dispute that it is your right to do so.

I do question whether it is wise to exercise that right.

mbonocore · February 12, 2014

I understand your position Ferguson and Tomo....I really do. But again, we do not allow you to hide the "Powered By SmugMug" text on the footer. I will gladly listen to your arguments, but I can tell you this will not be changing anytime soon.

Thanks for your understanding.

pilotdave · February 13, 2014

mbonocore wrote: »

I understand your position Ferguson and Tomo....I really do. But again, we do not allow you to hide the "Powered By SmugMug" text on the footer. I will gladly listen to your arguments, but I can tell you this will not be changing anytime soon.

Thanks for your understanding.

What drives me nuts is that you fixed this "bug" before fixing bugs that matter to ANYONE. Video keywords still don't work. Alt tags showing full captions over top of images. My keywords list is still all screwed up from a previous "bug fix." So many features from legacy are still missing. And you (smugmug, not you personally) just go making it worse. The fact that you allowed us to hide it when you released new smug was one of the few things I liked about the big downgrade. This shows where your priorities are... definitely not with customer satisfaction.

Now I am finding that this change has screwed up my site. Your footer is below my footer, looking ridiculous and making me scroll to see the bottom of the homepage. I guess it also interfered with some other CSS I am using so my galleries are now way too wide, causing a horizontal scroll bar to appear. Or maybe that was caused by some other "bug fix" you guys implemented without mentioning?

I'm sure these problems can be fixed with more custom CSS, but I'm getting tired of having to fix problems you guys cause. Fortunately I still find new smug to be lacking features I want, so I'm still sticking with legacy. Glad I wasn't unveiled for this change.

I'm waiting to see how you put positive spin on this one in the release notes. Or were you planning to just sneak this one in without mentioning it?

Dave

AperturePlus · February 13, 2014

This is something that has confused me since I joined. Please, SM, would you show me where I agreed to this 'rule'? I must have missed it.

beardedgit · February 13, 2014

AperturePlus wrote: »

This is something that has confused me since I joined. Please, SM, would you show me where I agreed to this 'rule'? I must have missed it.

Now I'd have thought that said "rule" would have been in the "Terms" stated in http://www.smugmug.com/about/terms/ but don't see it there.
Maybe it IS there but they've hidden it with some CSS...

Anyways, I thought I'd drop by to apologise for stirring up a 5h1t-storm. Personally I'm not too fussed about the footer per se, here's a list of what bothers me:

Priority - I don't see how SM can justify assigning resources to this while there are still so many bugs;
Liability - the footer-link is an ad for SM, I'm uneasy of the moral and legal consequences of having my site advertise something that's sub-standard;
Audacity - why sneak this in under the radar? If there really is a "rule" anywhere, SM could have sent all users a polite reminder of the terms, providing a link to the pertinent "rule" and giving them a short period of grace to make their sites compliant;
Transparency - where are the release notes for this and other changes?
Fraternity (or lack thereof) - if SM was to actually work with users, rather than just claim to when they do something universally acceptable, we could have the place in good order in good time. Instead, SM creates a situation which provokes rebellion rather than inspires cooperation;
Alchemy - somebody mentioned Ford. Remember the Edsel?

Just my $0.02 (which is way less than the $60 that SM would have got from me in July).

Yippee ki-yay, footer-muckers!

rich56k · February 13, 2014

As if this isn't bad enough (see all above comments) the pages load so slow that virtually every page /gallery you click on is initially blank except for the "footer" showing briefly (but blatantly) at the TOP OF THE PAGE.

mbonocore · February 13, 2014

Bearded, how can we make release notes on something that isn't a feature or a bug? We have not allowed removal of the Powered By Smugmug for a long time. Nothing is new.

mbonocore · February 13, 2014

Rich, please include a link to your site and I will take a look

rich56k · February 13, 2014

mbonocore wrote: »

Rich, please include a link to your site and I will take a look

It's happening on your site too..

but here's a couple of mine:

http://www.hooliganunderground.com/TAMX/AFTERHOURS-SUMMIT-FONTANA-131/i-jBHRJsj

http://www.hooliganunderground.com/Cars/BURBANK-Beboppin-in-the-Park/i-26QBXcV

1:25 am UPDATE: I guess it could just be the pages are loading slowly by random coincidence...but on the other hand it's 1 am PST so hmmm... I'll try again in the morning...

AperturePlus · February 13, 2014

mbonocore wrote: »

Bearded, how can we make release notes on something that isn't a feature or a bug? We have not allowed removal of the Powered By Smugmug for a long time. Nothing is new.

Hi Michael

I have heard about this 'rule' for some time and as Beardedgit says, it doesn't bother me that much, but the principal of it does.

Please would you show me exactly where I agreed to this rule? Surely it is in your terms of service, which is the contract that binds all of us to you?

beardedgit · February 13, 2014

mbonocore wrote: »

Bearded, how can we make release notes on something that isn't a feature or a bug?

Simple. Something doesn't need to be "New" or "Fixed" to merit a release note, being "Changed" also qualifies. Have you never heard of change-notices?

You could have informed us that you'd changed the code for the footer link, instead of continuing with the "hit & run" routine.

Or, better still, you could have informed us beforehand of your intent so that we were forewarned. No nasty shocks.

After all, did SM not bring out the silver trumpets, the gaudy banners and the ra-ra cheerleading evangelists before the release of SM2 back in mid-2013?

I'll keep your footer as a monument to the shameful way that SM treats the folk that fund it.

mbonocore · February 13, 2014

SM footer link no longer hidden

AperturePlus wrote: »

Hi Michael

I have heard about this 'rule' for some time and as Beardedgit says, it doesn't bother me that much, but the principal of it does.

Please would you show me exactly where I agreed to this rule? Surely it is in your terms of service, which is the contract that binds all of us to you?

No where do we say you can remove it. Will you show me exactly where it says "You can remove SmugMug footer"?

mbonocore · February 13, 2014

Bearded, how would notifying you before hand change anything. You would still be mad, and the footer would still be visible.

rich56k · February 13, 2014

rich56k wrote: »

It's happening on your site too..

but here's a couple of mine:

http://www.hooliganunderground.com/TAMX/AFTERHOURS-SUMMIT-FONTANA-131/i-jBHRJsj

http://www.hooliganunderground.com/Cars/BURBANK-Beboppin-in-the-Park/i-26QBXcV

1:25 am UPDATE: I guess it could just be the pages are loading slowly by random coincidence...but on the other hand it's 1 am PST so hmmm... I'll try again in the morning...

1:40 am UPDATE: The more sites I randomly check they're all exhibiting the same behavior - it's too late for me to delve deeper - but I will recheck this in the morning and post...

AperturePlus · February 13, 2014

mbonocore wrote: »

Bearded, how can we make release notes on something that isn't a feature or a bug? We have not allowed removal of the Powered By Smugmug for a long time. Nothing is new.

mbonocore wrote: »

No where do we say you can remove it. Will you show me exactly where it says "You can remove SmugMug footer"?

Please let's not play with words Michael. What I asked you was to show me where YOU (and for the sake of clarity, by YOU, I mean SmugMug) say that we can't remove it.

If it is a rule - then surely somewhere it should be stated, or is this one of those urban legends that people have just come to believe must be written and agreed to somewhere?

beardedgit · February 13, 2014

mbonocore wrote: »

Bearded, how would notifying you before hand change anything.

Well, for starters it would have shown good manners.

SM footer link no longer hidden

Comments