SmugDav showing images that aren't in my gallery?

SloYerRoll

The screen grab says it all. I emptied this gallery to upload the newest versions of shots to send families and friends. THen I go to use SmugDav to upload and there are images in there.. So I triple check the gallery via the web interface and there's no images to be seen..

So I d/l the images and they are mine alright. But 4 of them are identical copies of the same image. (I've never used the "copy" tool or uploaded multiple images {especially this kind of boring one})

I checked all these images that I copied off the SmugDav window and all of them are full sized.

So I ignored those images and decided to try uploading a series of images. Everything went nice and smooth. But the images aren't in the folder where I put them. But the SmugDav explorer folder shows them as there.

I'm not incredibly worried about this. But it's not my memory I'm using. If you consider the 5 million images you guys host and the chance that a chunk of them may be due to a programming error could be a pretty big deal.

Best,
-Jon

David_S85

Thread bump.

SloYerRoll

Thanks for the bump David. Hindsight being what it is. I think this should have been emailed to the help desk vs here in the forums.

I understand the fact that no one probably wants to touch this thread until some testing has been done so some real answers can been given. Not to mention from a developers POV, this screen grab is pretty scary (unless I'm missing something) since there's data being copied for no real reason.

It may be in SmugMugs best interest if you remove the SmugDav tutorial from the Wiki if it is broken (at least Vista is).

The only thing I can do is download pictures in bulk. And unless I have a list of filenames, even that's useless since Windows Explorer doesn't provide previews of the image, no matter how large you set the preview size to. All I see is a "Ps" icon.

It's a little OT:

Of course, I have no idea of the goings on w/ SmugMug internally.

But I'm kind of surprised how SmugMug boasts of having only 27 (I think) employees but they are always absolutely slammed. Wouldn't it be a wise investment to pay for some talent to focus on these issues? With the massive amount of revenue generated relative to the amount of employees and overhead. One would think that was a no brainer.

cabbey

SloYerRoll wrote:

It may be in SmugMugs best interest if you remove the SmugDav tutorial from the Wiki if it is broken (at least Vista is).

I played with smugdav a bit a long time ago, my results weren't much better from linux or mac. Last I checked it's still listed as a beta hack.

But I'm kind of surprised how SmugMug boasts of having only 27 (I think) employees but they are always absolutely slammed. Wouldn't it be a wise investment to pay for some talent to focus on these issues? With the massive amount of revenue generated relative to the amount of employees and overhead. One would think that was a no brainer.

Ah, but that's the slippery slope toward explosive growth that can kill a corporate culture and a company.

SloYerRoll

I don't see what's so hack about it It's just accessing the server in a non-pretty way. There should be no difference unless there are files in said directory that the browser can't parse.

cabbey wrote:

Ah, but that's the slippery slope toward explosive growth that can kill a corporate culture and a company.

**Again, I have no idea what SM is doing in the background. I can only express my opinion on the limited view I have.

It's inevitable though. That's life.
Unless they want to end up like another Midwest Photo exchange. They should be looking into hiring real talent.
*Midwest is a photo supply company that David Hobby (Strobist) bumps big time. If you go into the strobist flickr forums, you'll see the pages riddled w/ complaints and grumblings of not enough support and ppl messing up etc. Yea, their making a ton of money, but their finite business life is due to not being staffed enough to meet the needs and demands of an increasing customer base.

I'm not saying SmugMug is dropping the ball in that manner. But the writing seems to be on the wall. I've seen videos and read the bio's of the company. I understand they didn't build a scalable business model to accommodate for such explosive growth. Hell, I don't think anyone ever really expects to hop on a tidal wave when the go surfing for a business. But if I had a dollar for every time Andy had to say, "Sorry, I wish I had a better answer for you". I wouldn't be rich, but I could get some sweet glass. He dodges more bullets than Jet Li (and does it well).

I'm sure the friends and associates they have hired are great ppl and very talented. I've got nothing against any of them. But as you know more than others Cabbey (since you've lived in the linux world for a while). There are some heavy hitters out there that can obliterate their problems and help them focus on the future of intenet photo sharing. But big talent requires big dollars.

No matter how gigantic, all businesses have a life cycle. It depends on what steps a company takes as to how long that lifecycle is.

cabbey

SloYerRoll wrote:

I don't see what's so hack about it It's just accessing the server in a non-pretty way. There should be no difference unless there are files in said directory that the browser can't parse.

What I meant was they don't even pretend to support it as well as the beta level api interface. See the disclaimer here:

smugmug wiki wrote:

WARNING:smugDAV is highly experimental. I wouldn't even call it BETA level software just yet.

**Again, I have no idea what SM is doing in the background. I can only express my opinion on the limited view I have.

Yup, exactly the same here. The only thing I know about the internals of the SM processes that you wouldn't know, is that my resume has been floating around inside it since the beginning of the year.