Smart rules don't work anymore with double keywords: example: "Carbo Carbo"

HSWildlife

I'm building our own encyclopedia with mammals, birds...etc. But now i have a problem. It worked before but now i can't make a smart rule anymore for, for example: "Phalacrocorax carbo carbo". This is another bird than a "phalacrocorax carbo lucidus" (other subspecies of the Great Cormorant). I can't simply use "phalacrocorax carbo" because than i would get both subspecies in the smart gallery. Anyone know how i can avoid this? Again, IT USED TO WORK! Sorry i can't add a link to my site because this is my first question!

Allen

Could it be because of the double carbo carbo?

Allen

Created this "texas fence fence" as test. "texas fence" shows is smart gallery KW selection but not with double "fence". "texas fence" also shows as KW but not "texas fence fence". Looks like double doesn't work.

sallyb

I just hit the same issue this morning. Keyword "dolmen de palet de roland" only works if I set the smart rule as "dolmen de palette roland". Note that, unlike the other examples, the two uses are not contiguous. This going to give a lot of issues with my French sites.

Allen

Not sure if the de is connected with what follows it. But try this.
"dolmen de_palet de_roland"

Just guessing but is this anywhere near what it means?
concerning palet and concerning roland

sallyb

Ok, let me use a different example. I have some images taken in Colorado that have the keyword "the garden of the gods". If I create a gallery with a smart rule containing exactly that keyword then I get no results. If I omit the first "the" - "garden of the gods" - I get no results. If I omit the second one - "the garden of gods" - I get all the appropriate images. Underscores between "the" and "garden" make no difference. I need to to try it on my wildlife pics now to see how it handles "gorilla gorilla gorilla"

leftquark

I'll poke into this. Stay tuned.

sallyb

@leftquark said:
I'll poke into this. Stay tuned.

Thanks

HSWildlife

@Allen , @sallyb , @leftquark Thanks for looking into this! (I've tried something with underscores but they don't give the result i'm after).

sallyb

Not sure how much this progresses things but it may save someone a little testing. I just added a keyword "gorilla gorilla gorilla to an image of - you guessed - and loaded it into SM. If I take a look at the pic in SM it show the keyword correctly but, in smart settings, the only thing that works is "gorilla". I thought there was a chance that it was failing on the 2nd occurrence of a word but this seems to show that it's any repetition. HTH.

Allen

Smug removes duplicate keywords but it looks like it's removing the dups inside multi-word keywords also.

leftquark

We're working on a fix to not remove duplicate words within a phrase. It'll head to QA shortly and I'll let you know when its pushed live. Gorilla gorilla gorilla would then work as a specific keyword, as would Phalacrocorax carbo carbo vs phalacrocorax carbo lucidus

sallyb

Very cool. Thank you.

HSWildlife

@leftquark Fantastic, saves me a lot of time!

leftquark

@HSWildlife said:
@leftquark Fantastic, saves me a lot of time!

(On a side note, I've verified your dgrin account so you should be able to @mention people properly now :P)

HSWildlife

@leftquark Is there a way to re-index the keywords on my complete site? Reason: I've just added Passer domesticus domesticus and you know what? The duplicate "domesticus" is no problem within the smart rules! It works. So a new one works, but an older one doesn't. That's why I think a re-index could help.

HSWildlife

@leftquark .. sorry I had to logout and login to make the @mention option work. So again: Is there a way to re-index the keywords on my complete site? Reason: I've just added Passer domesticus domesticus and you know what? The duplicate "domesticus" is no problem within the smart rules! It works. So a new one works, but an older one doesn't. That's why I think a re-index could help.

Hpix

An option to rebuild the database of existing metadata would be a very good feature. For the problem cited in this discussion, and for the way SM was (is?) mangling certain metadata.

After the fix to not trash backslashes in Keywords, new uploads worked, but about 50,000 of my existing photos are still trashed. The existing photos have proper metadata/Keywords, it is just that SM did not read/store it properly.

When metadata is improperly stored in SM, whatever the cause, it seems much wiser to have SM re-read the photos and update its database then to do the brute-force alternative, have to delete and reload them all, or have LR re-sync which takes forever, and both use massive bandwidth to achieve what should be purely a local SM action. Multiply the brute-force methods by the number of users who have some type of metadata problem and everyone suffers (bandwidth can be expensive).

Also, the ability to force a database re-read of metadata would be a strong workaround (or even solution) to the broken Update+Replace system, which does not actually do what it promises. It only replaces the photo file images, it does not update+replace the metadata in those same photo files. Yet often, metadata is what needs replacing (fixed a date-time, improved a caption, better identified people/places, etc). Current SM makes metadata impossible via browser Update, apparently only possible using Lightroom-SM sync (to fix your grandmother's name will be $120 please...).

Robust database systems should have a re-index/re-build option, because stuff happens. Unless there's a major downside, this ability would really improve SmugMug.

Hpix

Hello SmugMug: Any response to the excellent suggestion to have a Reload Metadata button? This would let users repair the bad outcome of several bugs, including the broken Upload+Replace process and the recent fix to Upload of Keywords with backslashes, which left existing Keywords trashed. Stash the button in the Organize area for site owner only.

It should be straightforward to provide a button that triggers a script to do this, the metadata read-store action already exists as part of Upload. This probably could be implemented long before the actual bugs get fixed (if ever).

(I could make snarky observation that the work to clean up and improve the UI, lightbox, whatever -- especially to show Captions and use Smart Galleries -- is of no value if the photos metadata is bad. Especially if it is bad because SM previously messed it up!)

leftquark

While things may often be straight-forward, we do our best to keep our teams focused so it can be hard to squeeze things in, especially if they're features that a majority of SmugMuggers wouldn't use. We're doing our best to keep the product focused on features that all of you want to use, since it means it's easier to maintain and easier for a small company like us to keep the product growing in the right direction.

I'm still pushing the team to pull in the fix for updating metadata when you replace a photo.