I never use the .smugmug.com domain and since I have a custom domain on my site, any references to primarycolors.smugmug.com should always be replaced with the custom domain, unless technically necessary. So far I haven't run into a technical reason.
I'm late to the game with smugmug and I don't know the complete history, but it appears that custom domains were a later enhancement that has never been completely applied.
Here is the expectation: A end user/customer should never see the primarycolors.smugmug.com name when a pro custom domain has been set up. However I see the .smugmug.com name used in several locations (while logged out):
1) Links to friends and family
2) Search results - here the results are different. Gallery matches actually use www.smugmug.com as the link. Individual picture matches use the primarycolors.smugmug.com.
3) the "photo by" and "see photo in gallery" links
All of these should use the custom domain when one is set up.
For a search example, go to www.smugmug.com and enter "wavecrest" in the search box. Note the first matching gallery uses www.smugmug.com and the individual photos use primarycolors.smugmug.com
I just checked and the issue that I mentioned above seems to have corrected (itself?).
The stats have been away for a short while, which had to do with our maintenance last nigh. All is back in place now, and should be functioning fine! I'm sorry for the inconvenience.
Control Panel
In the control panel if you select "display:show" for the user referrals this will cause the earnings of the pro tools and referrals to disappear.
Selecting "hide" toggles the earnings back on but the referrals box will not collapse. This occurs with firefox and ie6. Not sure if its a bug or me...Thanks
In the control panel if you select "display:show" for the user referrals this will cause the earnings of the pro tools and referrals to disappear.
Selecting "hide" toggles the earnings back on but the referrals box will not collapse. This occurs with firefox and ie6. Not sure if its a bug or me...Thanks
larger 'light screen' doesnt work
Hi.. I'm not sure of the proper name.. but when I have my gallery style set to smugmug (large) and I click the larger image on the right, it use to open up a larger image full screen like a lightbox. It still works on my older client galleries.. but NOT on my most recently added client gallery. When I click the larger picture, the page freezes up.
Hi.. I'm not sure of the proper name.. but when I have my gallery style set to smugmug (large) and I click the larger image on the right, it use to open up a larger image full screen like a lightbox. It still works on my older client galleries.. but NOT on my most recently added client gallery. When I click the larger picture, the page freezes up.
I've checked my customization settings and they seem to be the same as my other galleries that work with the lightbox.
thanks for your help,
Diane
Not a SmugMug bug, a Diane bug you had two Unclosed <div> statements that broke your site. I fixed that for you. <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/wave.gif" border="0" alt="" >
Not a SmugMug bug, a Diane bug you had two Unclosed <div> statements that broke your site. I fixed that for you. <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/wave.gif" border="0" alt="" >
Problem logging into my SmugMug account
For the last few days, I periodically receive a Mozilla error message when attempting to log into my SmugMug account. The attached screen shot contains the error displayed. (I'm running Windows XP SP2 and Mozilla 1.7.5)
If I wait a while, the problem goes away. But it comes back as well.
For the last few days, I periodically receive a Mozilla error message when attempting to log into my SmugMug account. The attached screen shot contains the error displayed. (I'm running Windows XP SP2 and Mozilla 1.7.5)
If I wait a while, the problem goes away. But it comes back as well.
Have you looked at the cert? (examine certificate).. and then accept it permanently? Thanks.
Yes, I examined the certificate but the information contained therein means nothing to me (see attached). If you can tell that this is legit, I'd be glad to accept it permanently, but just because it references '*.smugmug.com' (which is where I'm trying to connect), it also references 'modgods, inc.' (organization), 'UTN-USERFirst-Hardware' (issuing common name), and 'The USERTRUST Network' (issuing organization) all of which mean nothing to me.
But 1) why has this only recently started and 2) why does it come and go?
Yes, I examined the certificate but the information contained therein means nothing to me (see attached). If you can tell that this is legit, I'd be glad to accept it permanently, but just because it references '*.smugmug.com' (which is where I'm trying to connect), it also references 'modgods, inc.' (organization), 'UTN-USERFirst-Hardware' (issuing common name), and 'The USERTRUST Network' (issuing organization) all of which mean nothing to me.
But 1) why has this only recently started and 2) why does it come and go?
I noticed this the other day, and since it was an older sale, thought nothing of it, but...
There are now two sales/orders in my sales log with blank thumbnails as their entries. order # 142936 and order # 178500 the latter of which is from noon today. No thumbnail is displayed at all. I can click on the order number to bring the sale up (thank goodness) but while viewing within, there is no thumbnail displayed for one product, while it shows thumbnails for the others of that same order. It's only a minor inconvenience, since I have to cycle through that gallery and find the specific filename to know what they ordered, in order to proof it. This isn't going to set anything back as far as proof delay or freak out the order process in any way, since it doesn't know what product was ordered, is it?
I'm going to wait to release this proof delay til I get the okay from you guys just in case.
Thanks for looking into it,
Steve Mills
BizDev Account Manager
Image Specialist & Pro Concierge
I noticed this the other day, and since it was an older sale, thought nothing of it, but...
There are now two sales/orders in my sales log with blank thumbnails as their entries. order # 142936 and order # 178500 the latter of which is from noon today. No thumbnail is displayed at all. I can click on the order number to bring the sale up (thank goodness) but while viewing within, there is no thumbnail displayed for one product, while it shows thumbnails for the others of that same order. It's only a minor inconvenience, since I have to cycle through that gallery and find the specific filename to know what they ordered, in order to proof it. This isn't going to set anything back as far as proof delay or freak out the order process in any way, since it doesn't know what product was ordered, is it?
I'm going to wait to release this proof delay til I get the okay from you guys just in case.
Thanks for looking into it,
O.k., 142936... you deleted the only image in the order
178500... I can't see it either! Though, I can see it on our order status page just fine, and I'm sure we'll hear back from EZP if they have any trouble grabbing the image.
EDIT: You can go ahead and ship the order whenever you're ready. Is anyone else seeing something similar in their sales details?
Possible security bugs
I realize that it's possible for some one to directly link to an image in a gallery -they are simply bypassing the authentication scripts. But although authentication is made on the home and category pages, there is no authentication made on the gallery page itself. Here is what happened...
My wife maintains a list of books that she sells in an Excel spread sheet. She turned the title of the books into hyperlinks to the images on her SmugMug site using the gallery link (not a link to the .jpg file), so people who like to use the list could click on the link and see the book in the gallery. All worked well until she moved a book from a public to a private gallery and realized that even though she was logged out she could still get to the gallery page with the thumbnails and the book photo. Once you click on the breadcrumb links to take you to the home page you can't see the private gallery anymore. I tried it myself, while logged into my site, just to make sure it wasn't a cookie issue with her browser that was logging her in. But I could see the gallery page on her site as well, even though it was private. IMHO the gallery page should have the same authentication as the home and category pages...
Also the share photo: links, forums, blogs link is visible to everyone if you have it enabled in the control panel. The problem is that the page it sends you to, the Flaunt your photos page, makes it very easy for some one to get links to your images. With the gallery authentication bug all of your galleries, even private ones, could be pulled into some one else's web site. Again, if the exact url to a .jpg file is known then your images can get leached anyway, but why make it easy for someone to steal images? IMHO the toggle in the control panel should be for site owner on/off or an additional option needs to be added so that the site owner can see the link but no one else can. Part of my membership was paying for the right to post links to my images on other web sites -but I didn't pay for everyone to do it...
I realize that it's possible for some one to directly link to an image in a gallery -they are simply bypassing the authentication scripts. But although authentication is made on the home and category pages, there is no authentication made on the gallery page itself. Here is what happened...
My wife maintains a list of books that she sells in an Excel spread sheet. She turned the title of the books into hyperlinks to the images on her SmugMug site using the gallery link (not a link to the .jpg file), so people who like to use the list could click on the link and see the book in the gallery. All worked well until she moved a book from a public to a private gallery and realized that even though she was logged out she could still get to the gallery page with the thumbnails and the book photo. Once you click on the breadcrumb links to take you to the home page you can't see the private gallery anymore. I tried it myself, while logged into my site, just to make sure it wasn't a cookie issue with her browser that was logging her in. But I could see the gallery page on her site as well, even though it was private. IMHO the gallery page should have the same authentication as the home and category pages...
Also the share photo: links, forums, blogs link is visible to everyone if you have it enabled in the control panel. The problem is that the page it sends you to, the Flaunt your photos page, makes it very easy for some one to get links to your images. With the gallery authentication bug all of your galleries, even private ones, could be pulled into some one else's web site. Again, if the exact url to a .jpg file is known then your images can get leached anyway, but why make it easy for someone to steal images? IMHO the toggle in the control panel should be for site owner on/off or an additional option needs to be added so that the site owner can see the link but no one else can. Part of my membership was paying for the right to post links to my images on other web sites -but I didn't pay for everyone to do it...
Hi Dalantech,
We take your privacy and security extremely seriously, so thank you for bringing this up.
I'm afraid we must not be doing a good idea of outlining how our privacy and security features work. Either that, or I'm completely misunderstanding your post. If either of these scenarios are true, I apologize. If not, I'm afraid we're not talking about a bug (or bugs).
We have a help page on the subject, but reading through it, we've left some stuff out that's fairly important. The important thing is that 'privacy' and 'security' are different animals at SmugMug, and we provide settings to control both of them.
Here's what's going on:
- By setting a gallery to "private", you're not actually requiring any authentication at all. It's like closing the drapes on your windows at home - no one can see what's going on inside, but that doesn't necessarily mean you've locked the door and set the alarm. They could just walk right in. By setting your gallery to 'private', people would have to guess what your URL is or see it linked somewhere or already have it bookmarked or something. It basically removes it from the listings of anyone who's not logged in.
- By setting a 'password' on a gallery, you've now locked the door. Anyone visiting that gallery will be required to enter a password to see the photos, otherwise, they'll be blocked access.
These options can be mixed and matched. You can have a password set, for example, so everyone needs to authenticate, but you can have 'privacy' turned off. So people can easily find the gallery, they just can't easily get in. If you flip the scenario, people can't easily find the gallery, but they can easily get in. Only by using both together can you make it difficult to find and difficult to get in.
I hope I'm making sense, and more importantly, that this actually addresses your problem.
There are some other important settings that affect these two things, too, which you can find the 'security & privacy' section of your gallery settings:
- 'external linking' defines whether someone else can embed your photos in their blog, forum, myspace profile, etc. Turning it off means people can't stick your photos on their own pages.
- 'hide owner' defines whether someone viewing your gallery can tell if those photos belong to you. If it's set to on, they can't - they'll see your photos (depending on the other settings) but won't see your name or any links back to you.
Anyway, I hope that makes sense and gives you a feel for the various options we have in place to help you fine-tune who gets to see your photos and who doesn't.
Please holler if you have any other questions or if I blew it and didn't address your problem at all.
IPTC information not in processed images.
I originally requested this as a feature, but the more I think about it, and the more I read about concerns over photo piracy, the more I think that this is a bug.
When an original file contains IPTC copyright information, the processed images (thumbnails, small, medium, etc) should also contain that IPTC info. If someone lifts or links to an image from our galleries, the copyright info should go with it. right now, they'll only get the IPTC info if the oringinal is lifted.
You're already reading this info to use in keywords, captions, etc, so why not include it when the smaller images are processed?
I originally requested this as a feature, but the more I think about it, and the more I read about concerns over photo piracy, the more I think that this is a bug.
When an original file contains IPTC copyright information, the processed images (thumbnails, small, medium, etc) should also contain that IPTC info. If someone lifts or links to an image from our galleries, the copyright info should go with it. right now, they'll only get the IPTC info if the oringinal is lifted.
You're already reading this info to use in keywords, captions, etc, so why not include it when the smaller images are processed?
Hi, it's not a bug, I'm sorry to say. The resized images are kept free of IPTC and other metadata, to make them as lightweight as possible - so it's by design.
We take your privacy and security extremely seriously, so thank you for bringing this up.
I'm afraid we must not be doing a good idea of outlining how our privacy and security features work. Either that, or I'm completely misunderstanding your post. If either of these scenarios are true, I apologize. If not, I'm afraid we're not talking about a bug (or bugs).
We have a help page on the subject, but reading through it, we've left some stuff out that's fairly important. The important thing is that 'privacy' and 'security' are different animals at SmugMug, and we provide settings to control both of them.
Here's what's going on:
- By setting a gallery to "private", you're not actually requiring any authentication at all. It's like closing the drapes on your windows at home - no one can see what's going on inside, but that doesn't necessarily mean you've locked the door and set the alarm. They could just walk right in. By setting your gallery to 'private', people would have to guess what your URL is or see it linked somewhere or already have it bookmarked or something. It basically removes it from the listings of anyone who's not logged in.
There has to be some authentication check that's made on the home and category pages to see if you have the right to view the link to a gallery -I thought it was odd that the same check isn't made on the gallery page itself. If you clicked on the link in my initial post it takes you to a gallery page on the wife's site -a gallery that you can't see on the home and category page. I understand that you can't completely protect the .jpg links since there isn't any scripting in the way -that's a given. But my wife was concerned that some one could pull entire gallery pages into their own web site as if they don't belong to her -even galleries that are private.
- By setting a 'password' on a gallery, you've now locked the door. Anyone visiting that gallery will be required to enter a password to see the photos, otherwise, they'll be blocked access.
These options can be mixed and matched. You can have a password set, for example, so everyone needs to authenticate, but you can have 'privacy' turned off. So people can easily find the gallery, they just can't easily get in. If you flip the scenario, people can't easily find the gallery, but they can easily get in. Only by using both together can you make it difficult to find and difficult to get in.
I hope I'm making sense, and more importantly, that this actually addresses your problem.
There are some other important settings that affect these two things, too, which you can find the 'security & privacy' section of your gallery settings:
- 'external linking' defines whether someone else can embed your photos in their blog, forum, myspace profile, etc. Turning it off means people can't stick your photos on their own pages.
Turning it off also means that I, as the site owner, can't get to those links. I'm guessing it would be a feature request to change the way the toggle in the forum options works so that the site owner is the only one who can see the share photos link?. To me this is also a "security bug" of sorts since it makes it very easy for someone to leach my images. Granted, if I want to link to my files from external sites then so can everyone, but why make it easy for some one to take my images...
- 'hide owner' defines whether someone viewing your gallery can tell if those photos belong to you. If it's set to on, they can't - they'll see your photos (depending on the other settings) but won't see your name or any links back to you.
Anyway, I hope that makes sense and gives you a feel for the various options we have in place to help you fine-tune who gets to see your photos and who doesn't.
Please holler if you have any other questions or if I blew it and didn't address your problem at all.
Thanks,
Don
Thank you, again, for taking time out of your day to hear me out
There has to be some authentication check that's made on the home and category pages to see if you have the right to view the link to a gallery -I thought it was odd that the same check isn't made on the gallery page itself. If you clicked on the link in my initial post it takes you to a gallery page on the wife's site -a gallery that you can't see on the home and category page. I understand that you can't completely protect the .jpg links since there isn't any scripting in the way -that's a given. But my wife was concerned that some one could pull entire gallery pages into their own web site as if they don't belong to her -even galleries that are private.
I must still be missing something. I'm sorry about that, but hopefully you can talk me through it.
If a gallery is marked "private", those links do not show up on your home page or your category pages - so there's no need for an "authentication check" to get the links - they're just not displayed at all, to anyone but the owner. To pull gallery pages down, they'd have to guess what the the gallery URL is. Not an easy task.
If you *do* want some sort of authentication check, you need to set a password on the gallery(ies) in question.
Turning it off also means that I, as the site owner, can't get to those links. I'm guessing it would be a feature request to change the way the toggle in the forum options works so that the site owner is the only one who can see the share photos link?. To me this is also a "security bug" of sorts since it makes it very easy for someone to leach my images. Granted, if I want to link to my files from external sites then so can everyone, but why make it easy for some one to take my images...
I'm still not clear on how this helps someone get images any easier than they already do. Most automated scripts will spider and leach your whole gallery quickly, without needing the sharing link. Can you elaborate?
I must still be missing something. I'm sorry about that, but hopefully you can talk me through it.
If a gallery is marked "private", those links do not show up on your home page or your category pages - so there's no need for an "authentication check" to get the links - they're just not displayed at all, to anyone but the owner. To pull gallery pages down, they'd have to guess what the the gallery URL is. Not an easy task.
If you *do* want some sort of authentication check, you need to set a password on the gallery(ies) in question.
Oh, and we can completely protect the jpg links.
I'm still not clear on how this helps someone get images any easier than they already do. Most automated scripts will spider and leach your whole gallery quickly, without needing the sharing link. Can you elaborate?
Thanks!
I think all he is saying is that if someone already has the link, and subsequently, you make the gallery private, the user can still use the link and view the gallery with no "check" that the gallery is private....(like you said)...
He can create a new private gallery and move these pictures into it, or add a password to the gallery.
I must still be missing something. I'm sorry about that, but hopefully you can talk me through it.
If a gallery is marked "private", those links do not show up on your home page or your category pages - so there's no need for an "authentication check" to get the links - they're just not displayed at all, to anyone but the owner.
Emphasis added by me. So, if they are only displayed to the site owner then there has to be some sort of authentication check to determine if the owner is viewing those pages -or does it work by PFM?
If you *do* want some sort of authentication check, you need to set a password on the gallery(ies) in question.
Oh, and we can completely protect the jpg links.
I had my wife password protect the gallery -and I'm sure you could force an authentication check even on direct links to .jpg files (not that difficult to do).
I'm still not clear on how this helps someone get images any easier than they already do. Most automated scripts will spider and leach your whole gallery quickly, without needing the sharing link. Can you elaborate?
Thanks!
Average Joy Internet user doesn't use a spider, but gaining access to galleries that are set as private doesn't require much effort since there isn't anything in place to restrict access to them -and making the share photos link viewable to everyone eliminates the need for a web crawler...
Comments
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Hmm, I'm not sure if I'm being dumb or if something is off, so I'll let you decide.
On my Control Panel, it reads:
But on my "more details" page it reads:
Am I being obtuse, or is this off? Big difference between 33k and 143k, but I'm not fully awake yet.
BizDev Account Manager
Image Specialist & Pro Concierge
http://www.downriverphotography.com
Photos viewed is just photos, so it would be less.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
I'm not sure I totally understand how that works, but okay. However, tonight when I logged in and view my Control Panel, this is what I see:
Is it October already?
BizDev Account Manager
Image Specialist & Pro Concierge
http://www.downriverphotography.com
Hi Andy,
I was just checking my stats. This morning I had over 6,000 hits and now there are zero.
I'm not as hot abou this as some people get - just a hobby for me, but thought you should know.
Regards,
Lisa
www.ivarborst.nl & smugmug
In the control panel if you select "display:show" for the user referrals this will cause the earnings of the pro tools and referrals to disappear.
Selecting "hide" toggles the earnings back on but the referrals box will not collapse. This occurs with firefox and ie6. Not sure if its a bug or me...Thanks
www.ivarborst.nl & smugmug
Hi.. I'm not sure of the proper name.. but when I have my gallery style set to smugmug (large) and I click the larger image on the right, it use to open up a larger image full screen like a lightbox. It still works on my older client galleries.. but NOT on my most recently added client gallery. When I click the larger picture, the page freezes up.
the link is here:
http://dianes.smugmug.com/gallery/1937201/1/98188910
password: Steven (capital C)
I've checked my customization settings and they seem to be the same as my other galleries that work with the lightbox.
thanks for your help,
Diane
http://www.dianeschafer.com
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
<img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/bowdown.gif" border="0" alt="" >ahhhhhhhh genius... thank you so very much!!!<img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/clap.gif" border="0" alt="" >
http://www.dianeschafer.com
Thanks Andy. One more to add to the list:
Go to http://gallery.primarycolors.com/
Notice the links to the individual popular photos are incorrectly using primarycolors.smugmug.com
For the last few days, I periodically receive a Mozilla error message when attempting to log into my SmugMug account. The attached screen shot contains the error displayed. (I'm running Windows XP SP2 and Mozilla 1.7.5)
If I wait a while, the problem goes away. But it comes back as well.
Any ideas?
Dick Schofield
http://rschofield.smugmug.com/
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
But 1) why has this only recently started and 2) why does it come and go?
Thanks for your help.
Dick
http://rschofield.smugmug.com/
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
I will.
Thanks again.
Dick
http://rschofield.smugmug.com/
There are now two sales/orders in my sales log with blank thumbnails as their entries. order # 142936 and order # 178500 the latter of which is from noon today. No thumbnail is displayed at all. I can click on the order number to bring the sale up (thank goodness) but while viewing within, there is no thumbnail displayed for one product, while it shows thumbnails for the others of that same order. It's only a minor inconvenience, since I have to cycle through that gallery and find the specific filename to know what they ordered, in order to proof it. This isn't going to set anything back as far as proof delay or freak out the order process in any way, since it doesn't know what product was ordered, is it?
I'm going to wait to release this proof delay til I get the okay from you guys just in case.
Thanks for looking into it,
BizDev Account Manager
Image Specialist & Pro Concierge
http://www.downriverphotography.com
178500... I can't see it either! Though, I can see it on our order status page just fine, and I'm sure we'll hear back from EZP if they have any trouble grabbing the image.
EDIT: You can go ahead and ship the order whenever you're ready. Is anyone else seeing something similar in their sales details?
-Anne
I realize that it's possible for some one to directly link to an image in a gallery -they are simply bypassing the authentication scripts. But although authentication is made on the home and category pages, there is no authentication made on the gallery page itself. Here is what happened...
My wife maintains a list of books that she sells in an Excel spread sheet. She turned the title of the books into hyperlinks to the images on her SmugMug site using the gallery link (not a link to the .jpg file), so people who like to use the list could click on the link and see the book in the gallery. All worked well until she moved a book from a public to a private gallery and realized that even though she was logged out she could still get to the gallery page with the thumbnails and the book photo. Once you click on the breadcrumb links to take you to the home page you can't see the private gallery anymore. I tried it myself, while logged into my site, just to make sure it wasn't a cookie issue with her browser that was logging her in. But I could see the gallery page on her site as well, even though it was private. IMHO the gallery page should have the same authentication as the home and category pages...
Edit: An example: The following gallery is private, but if you click on the link you'll see the gallery page because no authentication check is being made. http://juneross.smugmug.com/gallery/1839765/19/98536524
Also the share photo: links, forums, blogs link is visible to everyone if you have it enabled in the control panel. The problem is that the page it sends you to, the Flaunt your photos page, makes it very easy for some one to get links to your images. With the gallery authentication bug all of your galleries, even private ones, could be pulled into some one else's web site. Again, if the exact url to a .jpg file is known then your images can get leached anyway, but why make it easy for someone to steal images? IMHO the toggle in the control panel should be for site owner on/off or an additional option needs to be added so that the site owner can see the link but no one else can. Part of my membership was paying for the right to post links to my images on other web sites -but I didn't pay for everyone to do it...
Looking for tips on macro photography? Check out my Blog: No Cropping Zone.
Hi Dalantech,
We take your privacy and security extremely seriously, so thank you for bringing this up.
I'm afraid we must not be doing a good idea of outlining how our privacy and security features work. Either that, or I'm completely misunderstanding your post. If either of these scenarios are true, I apologize. If not, I'm afraid we're not talking about a bug (or bugs).
We have a help page on the subject, but reading through it, we've left some stuff out that's fairly important. The important thing is that 'privacy' and 'security' are different animals at SmugMug, and we provide settings to control both of them.
Here's what's going on:
- By setting a gallery to "private", you're not actually requiring any authentication at all. It's like closing the drapes on your windows at home - no one can see what's going on inside, but that doesn't necessarily mean you've locked the door and set the alarm. They could just walk right in. By setting your gallery to 'private', people would have to guess what your URL is or see it linked somewhere or already have it bookmarked or something. It basically removes it from the listings of anyone who's not logged in.
- By setting a 'password' on a gallery, you've now locked the door. Anyone visiting that gallery will be required to enter a password to see the photos, otherwise, they'll be blocked access.
These options can be mixed and matched. You can have a password set, for example, so everyone needs to authenticate, but you can have 'privacy' turned off. So people can easily find the gallery, they just can't easily get in. If you flip the scenario, people can't easily find the gallery, but they can easily get in. Only by using both together can you make it difficult to find and difficult to get in.
I hope I'm making sense, and more importantly, that this actually addresses your problem.
There are some other important settings that affect these two things, too, which you can find the 'security & privacy' section of your gallery settings:
- 'external linking' defines whether someone else can embed your photos in their blog, forum, myspace profile, etc. Turning it off means people can't stick your photos on their own pages.
- 'hide owner' defines whether someone viewing your gallery can tell if those photos belong to you. If it's set to on, they can't - they'll see your photos (depending on the other settings) but won't see your name or any links back to you.
Anyway, I hope that makes sense and gives you a feel for the various options we have in place to help you fine-tune who gets to see your photos and who doesn't.
Please holler if you have any other questions or if I blew it and didn't address your problem at all.
Thanks,
Don
I originally requested this as a feature, but the more I think about it, and the more I read about concerns over photo piracy, the more I think that this is a bug.
The feature request can be found here:
http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?p=365707&highlight=iptc#post365707
When an original file contains IPTC copyright information, the processed images (thumbnails, small, medium, etc) should also contain that IPTC info. If someone lifts or links to an image from our galleries, the copyright info should go with it. right now, they'll only get the IPTC info if the oringinal is lifted.
You're already reading this info to use in keywords, captions, etc, so why not include it when the smaller images are processed?
Hi, it's not a bug, I'm sorry to say. The resized images are kept free of IPTC and other metadata, to make them as lightweight as possible - so it's by design.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
There has to be some authentication check that's made on the home and category pages to see if you have the right to view the link to a gallery -I thought it was odd that the same check isn't made on the gallery page itself. If you clicked on the link in my initial post it takes you to a gallery page on the wife's site -a gallery that you can't see on the home and category page. I understand that you can't completely protect the .jpg links since there isn't any scripting in the way -that's a given. But my wife was concerned that some one could pull entire gallery pages into their own web site as if they don't belong to her -even galleries that are private.
Understood.
Turning it off also means that I, as the site owner, can't get to those links. I'm guessing it would be a feature request to change the way the toggle in the forum options works so that the site owner is the only one who can see the share photos link?. To me this is also a "security bug" of sorts since it makes it very easy for someone to leach my images. Granted, if I want to link to my files from external sites then so can everyone, but why make it easy for some one to take my images...
Thank you, again, for taking time out of your day to hear me out
Looking for tips on macro photography? Check out my Blog: No Cropping Zone.
I must still be missing something. I'm sorry about that, but hopefully you can talk me through it.
If a gallery is marked "private", those links do not show up on your home page or your category pages - so there's no need for an "authentication check" to get the links - they're just not displayed at all, to anyone but the owner. To pull gallery pages down, they'd have to guess what the the gallery URL is. Not an easy task.
If you *do* want some sort of authentication check, you need to set a password on the gallery(ies) in question.
Oh, and we can completely protect the jpg links.
I'm still not clear on how this helps someone get images any easier than they already do. Most automated scripts will spider and leach your whole gallery quickly, without needing the sharing link. Can you elaborate?
Thanks!
http://photos.mikelanestudios.com/
I think all he is saying is that if someone already has the link, and subsequently, you make the gallery private, the user can still use the link and view the gallery with no "check" that the gallery is private....(like you said)...
He can create a new private gallery and move these pictures into it, or add a password to the gallery.
-Anne
Emphasis added by me. So, if they are only displayed to the site owner then there has to be some sort of authentication check to determine if the owner is viewing those pages -or does it work by PFM?
I had my wife password protect the gallery -and I'm sure you could force an authentication check even on direct links to .jpg files (not that difficult to do).
Average Joy Internet user doesn't use a spider, but gaining access to galleries that are set as private doesn't require much effort since there isn't anything in place to restrict access to them -and making the share photos link viewable to everyone eliminates the need for a web crawler...
Looking for tips on macro photography? Check out my Blog: No Cropping Zone.