Can you try some new uploaders?

Baldy

Hey all,

We've silenty been testing new uploaders for a long time but haven't exposed them to the masses for various reasons. One of them is the only uploader Facebook uses, which gets great reviews, but until a recent release SmugMug users could make it choke with the size of uploads we allow.

These uploaders have some advantages over the ones we expose now, such as:

1. If you use Internet Explorer, it installs an ActiveX component instead of Java.

2. It uploads 3 images simultaneously, which speeds things up.

3. It has more sophisticated retry and error recovery than most other uploaders.

How to use: click the add photos button, and if one of our in-browser uploaders comes up for you, click the link that says, "choose another uploader."

You'll end up on a page that lists 5 options. Choose the Universal Drag & Drop. In your address bar, you'll see that the smugmug URL now ends in applet=6 . Change that 6 to a 7 or 8 or 9 (each different number gives a different version of the new uploaders).

Can you report back whether it works well for you, what you like and don't, and which version you like best?

Thanks!
Baldy

denisegoldberg

Hey - thanks for asking us to play!

all three uploaders took quite a bit longer than I expected to upload the photos. All of the photos that I was playing with were about 2.4 megabytes in size. I didn't track the time with applet=7, but I did with 8 & 9, numbers included below. In all cases, I was only uploading 3 photos.

I think that the upload file box needs to have a minimize option on it. There wasn't any way to "undisplay" it short of requesting the desktop. And even if I collapsed everything to the desktop, as soon as I clicked on the IE window to redisplay it the upload file box popped up again. Not really a surprise, but it positions itself on top of the IE window.

The ability to add a caption within the upload seems like a nice to have feature, although I'm not sure that I'll use it. I've been doing most of my keyword/captions with the bulk tool once I'm in the gallery. (Yes, I know, it would make more sense to do that on my own computer, but I'm not!).

From a usability standpoint, I prefer the UI of applets 7 and 9 over that of 8. I think that's because those UIs isolate the photos that I've chosen to upload instead of indicating them with checkmarks in a sea of photos.

But - with applet 9, when I used the add file button it opened a box to select files. If I double-clicked the files from the open box it worked as expected. But if I dragged from the open box (probably not the desired user action, is it?), a new IE window was opened with the selected file opened. That wasn't what I meant! If I just opened a folder without using the add files button I could successfully drag the photos in to the upload window.

There appears to be a lag between when the progress bars indicate completion and when the dialog box saying that the upload is completed pops up.

Timings:
applet=8
Time estimates: Here are the estimates shown on the screen
Uploaded 3 photos, 1 at 2.19 megabytes: 1 minute 43 seconds, 1 at 2.41 megabytes: 6 minutes 24 seconds, 1 at 2.39 megabytes, 3 mnutes 19 seconds.

applet=9
Time estimates again: first photo at 2.37 megabytes, time of 5 minutes 50 seconds, second, 2.4 megabytes, 1 minute 49 seconds, 3rd at 2.4 megabytes, time of 5 minutes 33 seconds.

I'll probably do a little more playing, will add more comments if anything else jumps out at me.

---

OK, one more test, using applet=9 again. Uh oh! In my usual fashion, I think I broke it! I dragged in 7 photos, said to upload. 4 uploaded successfully. 2 were marked as connection problem, retrying. One continued to show as uploading, but I'm not really sure that it was since the sent number stopped changing (said send 1.92 megabytes of 2.26 megabytes for what seemed like forever). I clicked the cancel button on the upload files window. Nothing seemed to happen. But the reason it didn't cancel is that I'm running tabs in IE7, and my add photos window wasn't on top. Once I clicked that tab I got the "upload canceled" box. The photos were still in the box to be uploaded, so I clicked upload again. All three photos showed 0 seconds, connection problem, retrying... But it didn't appear to retry.

--- Denise

pmaland

Baldy wrote:

Can you report back whether it works well for you, what you like and don't, and which version you like best?

I always drag and drop, so I like #9, but hate the extra "OK" I have to click when it's done.

Baldy

denisegoldberg wrote:

Hey - thanks for asking us to play!

all three uploaders took quite a bit longer than I expected to upload the photos. All of the photos that I was playing with were about 2.4 megabytes in size. I didn't track the time with applet=7, but I did with 8 & 9, numbers included below. In all cases, I was only uploading 3 photos.

I think that the upload file box needs to have a minimize option on it. There wasn't any way to "undisplay" it short of requesting the desktop. And even if I collapsed everything to the desktop, as soon as I clicked on the IE window to redisplay it the upload file box popped up again. Not really a surprise, but it positions itself on top of the IE window.

The ability to add a caption within the upload seems like a nice to have feature, although I'm not sure that I'll use it. I've been doing most of my keyword/captions with the bulk tool once I'm in the gallery. (Yes, I know, it would make more sense to do that on my own computer, but I'm not!).

From a usability standpoint, I prefer the UI of applets 7 and 9 over that of 8. I think that's because those UIs isolate the photos that I've chosen to upload instead of indicating them with checkmarks in a sea of photos.

But - with applet 9, when I used the add file button it opened a box to select files. If I double-clicked the files from the open box it worked as expected. But if I dragged from the open box (probably not the desired user action, is it?), a new IE window was opened with the selected file opened. That wasn't what I meant! If I just opened a folder without using the add files button I could successfully drag the photos in to the upload window.

There appears to be a lag between when the progress bars indicate completion and when the dialog box saying that the upload is completed pops up.

Timings:
applet=8
Time estimates: Here are the estimates shown on the screen
Uploaded 3 photos, 1 at 2.19 megabytes: 1 minute 43 seconds, 1 at 2.41 megabytes: 6 minutes 24 seconds, 1 at 2.39 megabytes, 3 mnutes 19 seconds.

applet=9
Time estimates again: first photo at 2.37 megabytes, time of 5 minutes 50 seconds, second, 2.4 megabytes, 1 minute 49 seconds, 3rd at 2.4 megabytes, time of 5 minutes 33 seconds.

I'll probably do a little more playing, will add more comments if anything else jumps out at me.

---

OK, one more test, using applet=9 again. Uh oh! In my usual fashion, I think I broke it! I dragged in 7 photos, said to upload. 4 uploaded successfully. 2 were marked as connection problem, retrying. One continued to show as uploading, but I'm not really sure that it was since the sent number stopped changing (said send 1.92 megabytes of 2.26 megabytes for what seemed like forever). I clicked the cancel button on the upload files window. Nothing seemed to happen. But the reason it didn't cancel is that I'm running tabs in IE7, and my add photos window wasn't on top. Once I clicked that tab I got the "upload canceled" box. The photos were still in the box to be uploaded, so I clicked upload again. All three photos showed 0 seconds, connection problem, retrying... But it didn't appear to retry.

--- Denise

Hi Denise,

That is really great feedback. Thanks for playing!

Do you know how those times compare to the times you're seeing with another uploader? Which uploader do you normally use?

I'd love to know the steps that caused it do stop uploading. As soon as I get my hands on Windows later today, I'm gonna try various combos with the tabs.

Thanks,
Baldy

denisegoldberg

Baldy wrote:

Hi Denise,

That is really great feedback. Thanks for playing!

Do you know how those times compare to the times you're seeing with another uploader? Which uploader do you normally use?

I'd love to know the steps that caused it do stop uploading. As soon as I get my hands on Windows later today, I'm gonna try various combos with the tabs.

Thanks,
Baldy

Hey Baldy -
I usually use the universal drag & drop uploader, and I don't know how the times compare. I will run some more tests this evening when I get home from work (unless, of course, I can manage to carve out some time in my work day, bad!), and I'll run a timing comparison of the old and the new. If it matters, my tests were done on IE7 running on Vista, connection via a cable modem. I suppose it would be interesting to run a set of tests from my office too, where we have a T1 line.

In the case where the uploading stopped, I had selected 7 photos for upload, and 4 successfully uploaded. Nothing special that I could see. Is there some kind of diagnostic info that I should be looking for somewhere on my computer?

--- Denise

corbosman

I prefer a drag and drop solution, so 6 or 9. I thought 7 was a bit chaotic because it shows the folders in the selection window. But I supose thats a personal preference.

Whats wrong with your current one? Works just fine. Adding more and giving users options just means more stuff to debug and maintain, taking away from other stuff that can be done.

Cor

Baldy

corbosman wrote:

Whats wrong with your current one? Works just fine. Adding more and giving users options just means more stuff to debug and maintain, taking away from other stuff that can be done.

Cor

We think the current one is pretty serviceable as far as Universal uploaders go, and good for the computer-savvy who hang out here. They just want to drag files and have no extra clicks.

But it seems to foil computer novices more often than we wish. They have a tough time with drag & drop. They find it easier to click a button to find their files. And they seem to need the confirmation that comes from the thumbnails showing up in a window and then clicking an upload button.

The other thing is Java (which the current uploader uses) causes more trouble with IE than ActiveX does, which these uploaders are based on.

I'm putting together an upload picker page that will have one tab for windows users (and we'll auto sense your OS to make the tab active for you), one for Mac users, and one tab for sites. There will be a short list of uploaders on each tab.

On the Mac page, we'll list things like the Aperture and iPhoto plugins.

On the Windows page, I'd love to be able to suggest a simple option for novices that doesn't cause their eyes to glaze with computer geek speak like drag and drop.

denisegoldberg

Continuation of yesterday's timing tests, old universal uploader vs new (applet: 7)...
I uploaded the same 3 photos with both uploaders, deleting the first set after upload.

With old uploader, elapsed time for upload of 3 photos was 3:56.
With new uploader, elapsed time for upload of 3 photos was 4:14.

That surprised me a little, but it did confirm my feeling from last night after watching the completion bars on the 3-at-a-time uploaders.

Let me know if there's something else you'd like me to try.

--- Denise

kygarden

I used option 7 here at work and uploaded 3 photos for a total of 12.4 MB and it took about 25 seconds or so? Pretty fast and very convienent interface.

Allen

Just tried option7 and it took 19 minutes for all the thumbs to load in.
There'a 658 jpg's in folder.

Once loaded switched to details and sorted reverse modified so latest came to
top. This worked great.

Option 8, looks like very slow thumbnail load there also, not waiting
another 19 minutes.
On to option 9.
Dragged files from same folder to window and quit when it looked like
it was taking as long for all thumbs to load.

BTW, Firefox2 on pc with win2kp

kygarden

Allen wrote:

Just tried option7 and it took 19 minutes for all the thumbs to load in.
There'a 658 jpg's in folder.

Once loaded switched to details and sorted reverse modified so latest came to
top. This worked great.

Option 8, looks like very slow thumbnail load there also, not waiting
another 19 minutes.
On to option 9.
Dragged files from same folder to window and quit when it looked like
it was taking as long for all thumbs to load.

BTW, Firefox2 on pc with win2kp

I was curious about the thumbnail loading time so I took another look here. Using IE7, Win XP Pro on Dell D630 laptop with 2 GB RAM and dual core processor and a huge pipe to the internet (not sure of bandwidth at the moment - at work)...for 210 JPG's in a folder (total size of all those photos together is about 580 MB), it took about 15 seconds or less to load all the thumbnails. I didn't upload anything - just watched how long it took the thumbnails to load.

Anyway, I'm going to keep using option 7 from now on unless it gets yanked. I like it

Edit: Just did the smugmug.speedtest.net test and came up with 3.2 MB download and 5 MB upload - just an FYI

Allen

Update, using Opt 7 getting same slow thumbnail load. I lost FF window
control, no clicky anywhere, but can see thumbs loading. Running 100% CPU usage.

FF window will not come to front and redraw graphics.


Java Plug-in 1.6.0_02
Using JRE version 1.6.0_02 Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM

Verified Java Version

Congratulations!

You have the recommended Java installed (Version 6 Update 2).

Baldy

Allen wrote:

Just tried option7 and it took 19 minutes for all the thumbs to load in.
There'a 658 jpg's in folder.

Once loaded switched to details and sorted reverse modified so latest came to
top. This worked great.

Option 8, looks like very slow thumbnail load there also, not waiting
another 19 minutes.
On to option 9.
Dragged files from same folder to window and quit when it looked like
it was taking as long for all thumbs to load.

BTW, Firefox2 on pc with win2kp

Thanks, Allen. This is kindof a nasty problem because the thumbs are being generated on your machine via Java (if you use Firefox). It seems to bog as the folder gets big.

You should be able to right-click on the folder pane and choose list view from the menu that appears. That should stop the bogging, I think. Can you try that?

I could make the uploaders default to list view for guys like you with big folders.

Allen

Baldy wrote:

Thanks, Allen. This is kindof a nasty problem because the thumbs are being generated on your machine via Java (if you use Firefox). It seems to bog as the folder gets big.

You should be able to right-click on the folder pane and choose list view from the menu that appears. That should stop the bogging, I think. Can you try that?

I could make the uploaders default to list view for guys like you with big folders.

As soon as I changed to 7 and the page loaded it opened in "previous" view with thumbs loading. Right clicking or clicking different folder doesn't work.
Seems page is frozen.

Oops now switched folders and was enable to select detail. List loaded fairly
quick but big lag in scroll bar. 'bout 2 sec lag clicking indivual file also.

caroline

Baldy wrote:

Hey all,

We've silenty been testing new uploaders for a long time but haven't exposed them to the masses for various reasons. One of them is the only uploader Facebook uses, which gets great reviews, but until a recent release SmugMug users could make it choke with the size of uploads we allow.

These uploaders have some advantages over the ones we expose now, such as:

1. If you use Internet Explorer, it installs an ActiveX component instead of Java.

2. It uploads 3 images simultaneously, which speeds things up.

3. It has more sophisticated retry and error recovery than most other uploaders.

How to use: click the add photos button, and if one of our in-browser uploaders comes up for you, click the link that says, "choose another uploader."

You'll end up on a page that lists 5 options. Choose the Universal Drag & Drop. In your address bar, you'll see that the smugmug URL now ends in applet=6 . Change that 6 to a 7 or 8 or 9 (each different number gives a different version of the new uploaders).

Can you report back whether it works well for you, what you like and don't, and which version you like best?

Thanks!
Baldy

Is there any point in continuing to play with these in view of the recent release notes re uploaders ? I've been using number 7 and like the way it works, also seems pretty fast to me though I haven't compared times.

Caroline

Andy

caroline wrote:

Is there any point in continuing to play with these in view of the recent release notes re uploaders ? I've been using number 7 and like the way it works, also seems pretty fast to me though I haven't compared times.

Caroline

Sure there is - you can still use #s 7 and 8 if you like, you just have to so the url manipulation. We'd love the feedback, thanks.

sellis

I generally use FF, so I haven't tried these in IE. I like 7 and 8, but am leaning towards 8 since there are a few less clicks. I like having the folders visible automatically without having to open another window.
The thumbnails do take a while to load, but I my uploads are usually broken down into smaller chunks. I'm curious if it will be any faster in IE7 using ActiveX.

Netgarden

sellis wrote:

I generally use FF, so I haven't tried these in IE. I like 7 and 8, but am leaning towards 8 since there are a few less clicks. I like having the folders visible automatically without having to open another window.
The thumbnails do take a while to load, but I my uploads are usually broken down into smaller chunks. I'm curious if it will be any faster in IE7 using ActiveX.

PLEASE PLEASE please put the old IE drag and drop back.
The java one was so unpredictable, and I just don't like it. The other worked perfectly for IE, was fast, efficient, and you can't beat the drag and drop. Will it be back? Please say yes...

P.S. the list was priceless too. You could see if you had drug the correct ones in immediately.

Andy

Netgarden wrote:

PLEASE PLEASE please put the old IE drag and drop back.
The java one was so unpredictable, and I just don't like it. The other worked perfectly for IE, was fast, efficient, and you can't beat the drag and drop. Will it be back? Please say yes...

P.S. the list was priceless too. You could see if you had drug the correct ones in immediately.

Hi Linda,

We'll look into it - it's still on the site and available but you have to manipulate the url a bit:

Just click the link in the uploader page for "Simple" and then change
the url, where it says applet=9 - make that applet=3 and then hit enter.
You'll then get the uploader that you are familiar with.

But have you given "Simple" a chance? It really has been working wonderfully for me....

Netgarden

Thanx Andy, that worked fine.

Andy wrote:

Hi Linda,

We'll look into it - it's still on the site and available but you have to manipulate the url a bit:

Just click the link in the uploader page for "Simple" and then change
the url, where it says applet=9 - make that applet=3 and then hit enter.
You'll then get the uploader that you are familiar with.

But have you given "Simple" a chance? It really has been working wonderfully for me....

Baldy

Netgarden wrote:

PLEASE PLEASE please put the old IE drag and drop back.
The java one was so unpredictable, and I just don't like it. The other worked perfectly for IE, was fast, efficient, and you can't beat the drag and drop. Will it be back? Please say yes...

P.S. the list was priceless too. You could see if you had drug the correct ones in immediately.

Hi Linda,

I'm the (bad) guy who left it off the list when we went live with the new IE uploader last week... I'm glad Andy gave you the secret key to it, but we're hoping to phase it out in favor of the Simple uploader because the old one was a source of heartburn to some unsuspecting customers, and us. The Simple uploader is designed for IE too and is listed as the first choice on the Windows tab where you pick uploaders.

The biggest problem is the old one bundles all of your photos together into one blob so if there is a connection problem during upload, the whole batch is lost. The new one checks each photo as it arrives to see that it was received accurately. If not, it retries that file and resumes where it left off instead of bombing the whole batch with an error message.

We also have to wait for the whole blob to arrive before processing images, so our customers ask why getting images into their galleries takes so long. With the new one, each image is processed as it arrives so that by the time you're done with the batch, most images are already processed.

The third thing is the old one didn't retry if your ISP had a connection hiccup. You had to start over. This one recovers well even if you unplug your cable for awhile.

And finally, the user interface for the other had 4 buttons and a fair amount of text explaining how to use it. The new simpler uploader is easier to learn without giving up features. You can drag and drop into it as well and thumbnails of your images will appear so you can see what you've selected.

I hope this helps. Let me know if there's something I'm missing that the old one had the new one doesn't.

All the best,
Chris

caroline

Hi Chris
I'm using number 7 as I have a bunch of pics from my holiday to upload, it works fine for me and I would like to be able to give some useful feedback.
How do I check the upload time ? I always go off and do something else when a batch of pics are uploading

Caroline

Baldy

caroline wrote:

Is there any point in continuing to play with these in view of the recent release notes re uploaders ? I've been using number 7 and like the way it works, also seems pretty fast to me though I haven't compared times.

Caroline

Hi Caroline,

Yes, and many thanks for playing with them. The only one that we've gone live with is #9, which on the live site we refer to as the Simple uploader. We're dearly hoping we'll be successful replacing the old Internet Explorer uploader with it, because it's more robust when customers face connection issues.

No worries about clocking the upload performance with it. I think we have a handle on it now. It has a great benefit over the simple uploader for advanced users, which is you can browse and see thumbnails of what's in your directories. Also, you can pick from several directories for one upload. We can already tell that for some people it's their preferred choice.

What's kept us from going live with it is for big directories the thumbnails can take awhile to show up depending on the speed of your computer and your memory. We're a little bit afraid of frustrating people who put a lot of photos in each folder.

I'm looking into the issue of the progress dialog always being on top in IE. I dunno if we can fix that, we'll see. It can always be moved to the side.

Any other feedback you have would be very welcome.

Thanks!
Baldy

wayne861

Uploaders

Baldy wrote:

Hi Caroline,

Yes, and many thanks for playing with them. The only one that we've gone live with is #9, which on the live site we refer to as the Simple uploader. We're dearly hoping we'll be successful replacing the old Internet Explorer uploader with it, because it's more robust when customers face connection issues.

No worries about clocking the upload performance with it. I think we have a handle on it now. It has a great benefit over the simple uploader for advanced users, which is you can browse and see thumbnails of what's in your directories. Also, you can pick from several directories for one upload. We can already tell that for some people it's their preferred choice.

What's kept us from going live with it is for big directories the thumbnails can take awhile to show up depending on the speed of your computer and your memory. We're a little bit afraid of frustrating people who put a lot of photos in each folder.

I'm looking into the issue of the progress dialog always being on top in IE. I dunno if we can fix that, we'll see. It can always be moved to the side.

Any other feedback you have would be very welcome.

Thanks!
Baldy

Hi,

You should be able to hide the progress dialog by pressing windows+D to call the desktop and then open the page you want to use.

I tried the drag and drop and it stopped part way through with the socket exception error, just like the old version generally did. I have only tried one upload with the simple uploader, but it seemed to work well.

Wayne

http://wayne861.smugmug.com

Baldy

wayne861 wrote:

Hi,

You should be able to hide the progress dialog by pressing windows+D to call the desktop and then open the page you want to use.

I tried the drag and drop and it stopped part way through with the socket exception error, just like the old version generally did. I have only tried one upload with the simple uploader, but it seemed to work well.

Wayne

http://wayne861.smugmug.com

Thanks, Wayne. The drag & drop uploader uses Java and for Windows machines our experience isn't that great with Java. We have to send a lot of people to the Sun page and have them download the very most recent version. Also, the error recovery is not as robust as it is with the simple uploader.

Honestly, I'd like to provide a link on the windows tab for picking uploaders to explain where the legacy ones have gone and place the Java uploader on the legacy list with an explanation why. The issue is we have a lot of people for whom it works well who've grown accustomed to it. I can understand their frustration when we take something away or make it harder to find.

caroline

Hi baldy
I can't seem to find no 7 this morning ? Has it gone ?

Caroline

Luc De Jaeger

Windows Uploader
I just uploaded 384 pictures (about 5-6 MB each) with the Windows Uploader (not the Java one but the new active X one). The upload went flawlessly in a rate of about 17 pictures per hour (it took 2 consecutive days and one night to upload all the pictures without interruption) which is very fast in my opinion (I've a very fast ADSL connection).

What I miss is a "minimalize button" on the "uploading files" pop up window. Also, when I saw the three photos uploading at the same time and the green status bar that was filled within a second without any progress bar or indication (it became just a static pop up window), I was not sure if all was working or going well. Wouldn't it be more reassuring for the layman/woman that an indication is given that the pictures are uploaded because when one only sees a static pop up window -- without any "busy" notification or whirling circles or documents flying all over... ;-) one gets worried if the uploader is working well.

Anyway, the uploader worked flawlessly and is absolutely more reliable than the previouw one. No problems encountered at all!!:ivar

Luc

Baldy

caroline wrote:

Hi baldy
I can't seem to find no 7 this morning ? Has it gone ?

Caroline

Hi Caroline,

I accidentally broke it, sorry. :cry I'll try to get it fixed by our usual update of Thursday night. Still haven't decided whether to make it more public than just posting about it in this forum.

Baldy

Luc De Jaeger wrote:

I just uploaded 384 pictures (about 5-6 MB each) with the Windows Uploader (not the Java one but the new active X one). The upload went flawlessly in a rate of about 17 pictures per hour (it took 2 consecutive days and one night to upload all the pictures without interruption) which is very fast in my opinion (I've a very fast ADSL connection).

What I miss is a "minimalize button" on the "uploading files" pop up window. Also, when I saw the three photos uploading at the same time and the green status bar that was filled within a second without any progress bar or indication (it became just a static pop up window), I was not sure if all was working or going well. Wouldn't it be more reassuring for the layman/woman that an indication is given that the pictures are uploaded because when one only sees a static pop up window -- without any "busy" notification or whirling circles or documents flying all over... ;-) one gets worried if the uploader is working well.

Anyway, the uploader worked flawlessly and is absolutely more reliable than the previouw one. No problems encountered at all!!:ivar

Luc

Hi Luc,

Thanks for the feedback. I will look into the progress bar issue you're seeing. I hadn't heard that one yet.

All the best,
Chris

caroline

Baldy wrote:

Hi Caroline,

I accidentally broke it, sorry. :cry I'll try to get it fixed by our usual update of Thursday night. Still haven't decided whether to make it more public than just posting about it in this forum.

Hi Chris,

I really liked the split window of thumbs, it suited the way I like to work - yeah I know you can't please everyone ) but if you can fix it I for one would be very pleased.

A question though - which uploader shows 3 pics uploading simultaneously - so far I have not seen this. Is it Windows only ?

Cheers
Caroline

mattg

I would LOVE to see an uploader that is folder aware.

I sort out picutres of people into folders with their bike number on them, then upload them into galleries, one per person.

If I could just tell an uploader to upload a folder, which contains folders named a-1 a-2 b-2 b-3, and it would then create galleries for each folder within the category and sub category i specify it would be perfect!!

any ideas??