I have to say this again.. I think the Flickr way is the nicest IMHO. Upload a photo. It's "Uncategorized" and not really in any gallery. Then, assign it to galleries/groups/shares/etc.. Do it based on whatever criteria you want. It's no longer about the physical location of the photo, but the links each photo has to galleries/groups/shares. Then, allow security based on location. So, if you link to the image that also includes the gallery key, and that gallery is open, allow the image to show. If you link to the image that is in a passworded gallery, but it contains the gallery key, then prompt for the password.
So, you'd have to have both the gallery key and the image key to determine if the image is available to view or not.
At the risk of setting off another dgrin fight, there seems to be (at least) two different, competing definitions of 'virtual galleries':
1. A 'gallery' which doesn't actually contain photos/links, but instead contains instructions to dynamically pull in photos from the rest of your account. Example: "Photos keyworded with 'baseball' taken between Jan 1, 2007 and Jan 15, 2007 in the Silicon Valley" would on-the-fly pull in all of those photos. If you add a 'baseball' keyword to a photo that met the other criteria, it'd show up automagically.
2. A 'gallery' which doesn't contain photos, but does contain links to photos, such that you can group them together in interesting ways, but the photos themselves retain all the properties of their parents: caption, keywords, ratings, etc. If you cropped one, it would crop all links of that photo and so forth.
If you care about this topic, would you mind letting me know which 'virtual galleries' definition you mean? And if you had to choose one, which you'd choose?
Bear in mind that in either case, we'd likely have to honor passwords at the very least, so you couldn't have passworded images show up in non-passworded 'virtual galleries' of either definition... We'll think about that one, but I just don't see how we can do it and preserve our strong security claims and ideals.
These seem 95% the same to me. In the first, some sort of query based on previously set properies (keywords, dates, etc...) is used to identify which photos should be displayed in the virtual gallery. In the second, the user manually assigns a photo to a virtual gallery. If the manually assignment was implemented by assigning a type of keyword or property to the photo, then the two would be virtually identical in underlying implementation with the only difference being the UI for setting it up.
If I had to choose one, I'd rather my virtual gallery be based on keyword queries because I want to do as much organization of my images as possible in Lightroom before they get to Smugmug and then just have Smugmug display that. But, if you give me keyword queries, I figure I can always accomplish the second type also by just assigning a keyword in Smugmug and causing the image to get displayed somewhere. What I would really hope is that you do a generic implementation that meets the needs of both user interface options.
At the risk of setting off another dgrin fight, there seems to be (at least) two different, competing definitions of 'virtual galleries':
1. A 'gallery' which doesn't actually contain photos/links, but instead contains instructions to dynamically pull in photos from the rest of your account. Example: "Photos keyworded with 'baseball' taken between Jan 1, 2007 and Jan 15, 2007 in the Silicon Valley" would on-the-fly pull in all of those photos. If you add a 'baseball' keyword to a photo that met the other criteria, it'd show up automagically.
2. A 'gallery' which doesn't contain photos, but does contain links to photos, such that you can group them together in interesting ways, but the photos themselves retain all the properties of their parents: caption, keywords, ratings, etc. If you cropped one, it would crop all links of that photo and so forth.
If you care about this topic, would you mind letting me know which 'virtual galleries' definition you mean? And if you had to choose one, which you'd choose?
It seems like if number #1 was implemented, then it could also cover scenario #2 with little extra work (famous last words...)
Let's say you set up a rule-based virtual gallery (scenario #1) - but for this particular case, instead of a rule that says "all photos with keyword = xyz, date between 01/01/2006 and 12/31/2007" the rule for the gallery would be "these specific photo ID's: photo1, photo5, photo9"
Sort of like an iTunes playlist - you can define a dynamic playlist that contains all song with 4 stars in a particular genre, or you can make a playlist with just the songs that you specifically placed in it.
My $0.02 FWIW. If you're going to the trouble to add "a" level, then go all the way and make it a permanent fix by engineering "N" levels. If you go to 4 levels, in a few months (if you're lucky) people will start asking for 5 levels, and so on. I know I prefer to take a bit more time and figure out a more flexible, permanent fix when I have to go back and revise my code.
I like the idea of virtual galleries too. But that's a differnet topic.
I agree. Im not sure why we're talking about virtual galleries in this thread. It's needed, don't get me wrong, but its not the same solution as N levels. They both help with organization, but they're two different things.
It seems like you guys are tap dancing around the issue again & trying to offer another workaround "fix".
I agree. Im not sure why we're talking about virtual galleries in this thread. It's needed, don't get me wrong, but its not the same solution as N levels. They both help with organization, but they're two different things.
It seems like you guys are tap dancing around the issue again & trying to offer another workaround "fix".
When Don & Baldy get involved, I'm not fussy about where the discussion takes place, Kerry. We value the input on all of these subjects, and both "deeper gallery" structure and "virtual or smart" galleries are being considered.
We're too busy listening, creating and implementing to dance, sorry!
BaldyRegistered Users, Super ModeratorsPosts: 2,853moderator
edited April 30, 2008
Okay, we're gonna do N levels but unfortunately I don't have a timeline. The engineers are in hot pursuit on some reasonably short-term but important things.
I know this isn't a virtual gallery thread but I wanted to thank John for his excellent description of his workflow and need. I have more questions but will take them offline or to another thread.
I'd suggest that you do some form of virtual galleries first before working on more levels of container hierarchy because that's an even more powerful organizational tool and only then will you have a good picture of what else in gallery organization really needs to be done.
, I actually agree with him for the most part. Virtual galleries are very important & should have happened long ago, so maybe it should come first. BUT, just because you implement them doesnt mean N levels should get written off by any means. Like I said, they're two different things entirely. Only thing they have in common is they're organizational tools.
If possible, I'd bring 'em out at the same time. Maybe with the new UI??
Quick 2 cents
I'm one of those users who followed the thread but never posted. I'm excited to be able go even one level deeper. I'm also a Phanfare refugee, so I was forced into the sorting by year mentality over there. We didn't want to totally lose the grandparents by changing the organization when we jumped ship.
I think virtual galleries and category levels are quite related and neither should be designed without thinking about where you're going with the other. As we've already realized, doing virtual galleries might determine which photos show up in a virtual gallery, but it may have all the same display issues with hwo it's presented in the home page hierarchy. In fact, it may even create more demands because now there can be more views of the same photos.
So, I'll retract my request that you do one before the other. I think you should design an endpoint for where you want to get to with both because they are related. I personally think virtual galleries are way more powerful and open up way more display options than more levels of hierarchy so I'd prioritize them higher if I were choosing, but definitely design them together so you can end up with one unified design and not have to retrofit a new UI or infrastructure when the 2nd comes along.
If you're seriously considering virtual galleries, then I think you should open a new virtual gallery thread and ask for specific feedback on what people want to do with them. I have a bunch of ideas for them beyond what I've already shared that I could contribute there if you want.
Okay, we're gonna do N levels but unfortunately I don't have a timeline. The engineers are in hot pursuit on some reasonably short-term but important things.
I know this isn't a virtual gallery thread but I wanted to thank John for his excellent description of his workflow and need. I have more questions but will take them offline or to another thread.
To me virtual galleries is more of definition #1. #2 seems like HTML pages, which are already available. I don't see that the two issues are as interrelated as some do, but that's just me.
If you're seriously considering virtual galleries, then I think you should open a new virtual gallery thread and ask for specific feedback on what people want to do with them. I have a bunch of ideas for them beyond what I've already shared that I could contribute there if you want.
Yes, we're now actively working on them, so go ahead and start the thread. No code yet, but we're gathering requirements, etc.
At the risk of setting off another dgrin fight, there seems to be (at least) two different, competing definitions of 'virtual galleries':... if you had to choose one, which you'd choose?...
Both are very interesting, but option two is on the top of my list. And regarding security, I suggest each gallery, real or virtual, have its own password profile. I may have individual photos in protected galleries that I choose to display openly in a virtual gallery.
Example: using shots from various protected galleries in a virtual 'portfollio' gallery.
And just for argument sake: How about giving all galleries the ability to display photos that actually live in other galleries? Too messy?
X www.thepicturetaker.ca
0
Options
BaldyRegistered Users, Super ModeratorsPosts: 2,853moderator
And regarding security, I suggest each gallery, real or virtual, have its own password profile. I may have individual photos in protected galleries that I choose to display openly in a virtual gallery.
This is interesting because I think that's what John Friend wants to do too: allow photos from password-protected galleries to be displayed in non password-protected virtual galleries. Or maybe it's a password-protected virtual gallery, but it draws from multiple password-protected galleries whose passwords are all different.
The security critics on the net will consider us of the devil if we do that and there will be blogs flaming us. We already allow external links for password-protected galleries and they can't understand why we do.
You can add me to the list of people who really wants virtual galleries, both manual and parameter-based.
This is interesting because I think that's what John Friend wants to do too: allow photos from password-protected galleries to be displayed in non password-protected virtual galleries. Or maybe it's a password-protected virtual gallery, but it draws from multiple password-protected galleries whose passwords are all different.
The security critics on the net will consider us of the devil if we do that and there will be blogs flaming us. We already allow external links for password-protected galleries and they can't understand why we do.
You can add me to the list of people who really wants virtual galleries, both manual and parameter-based.
I do need password protected virtual galleries, but I'm perfectly willing to keep things simple. One password for the master gallery that contains the images and all virtual galleries derived from it. For password protected galleries, I'm willing to only draw from one gallery. I would just upload all the images for my event to one password protected and hidden gallery and then all viewable galleries would be password protected virtual gallery subsets, formed by a keyword query on the master gallery.
I don't even begin to know how you could make a security story that would make sense if you allowed virtual gallery images to be drawn from a password protected gallery and the resulting virtual gallery had a different password or no password. It sounds way too easy to mess up (either in Smugmug design or in end-user setup). Maybe it's possible to figure out a design that could pass security muster, but it certainly wouldn't be easy to understand. And, anything in security that isn't easy to understand is easy to mess up.
Even for non-password protected galleries, I'd do something similar. For example for our Yellowstone vacation, I'd upload all the images to one master gallery that was not publicly visible. I'd then create a bunch of viewable sub-galleries as virtual galleries (animals, landscapes, geysers, family, etc...). These virtual galleries would all draw from the same master gallery via keyword query.
This is interesting because I think that's what John Friend wants to do too: allow photos from password-protected galleries to be displayed in non password-protected virtual galleries. Or maybe it's a password-protected virtual gallery, but it draws from multiple password-protected galleries whose passwords are all different.
The security critics on the net will consider us of the devil if we do that and there will be blogs flaming us. We already allow external links for password-protected galleries and they can't understand why we do.
You can add me to the list of people who really wants virtual galleries, both manual and parameter-based.
My husband works in security and I could just see something like that ending up on Slashdot. I'm for virtual galleries as well as increased levels. I am interested in just one more level for my users, but I would definitely use more than that for my own organization, and if I could set up virtual galleries I could use as many levels as I feel necessary for my own sanity and use the virtual galleries to eliminate the click through issues for users.
Okay, we cleaned up the (inexcusable) UI for categories & subcategories and I'm interested in solving this in the simplest way we can.
Can others confirm that one more level of hierarchy is sufficient? Or do we need to go N levels deep?
I know this thread is a tad old, but I can confirm that one more level of hierarchy would be PERFECT for me. It'd let me do
Event
->2007
-->Renfaire
--->2008_06-07_dayone
---->Event1
---->Event2
---->Event3
Do you know what the status is on this subgallery concept? Trying to implement the various work arounds via html galleries, P Bolchover's hack, etc are way too much for me- at this point if I want subgalleries it looks like I will either have to leave smugmug or wait for it to happen, or keep a customizer on retainer to update things for me for every new album which isn't viable. I desperately want to stay with smugmug, but 2 months after I've joined I still don't have a system that I personally can maintain for displaying my SM personal photos separately from my SM pro site, so I need to decide on a solution asap. I know there are lots of other features being implemented, and all these things take time, but I wanted to check on the status before I make a decision here. I'm so happy with how my pro site is looking on SM, but paying for yet another provider for my other stuff is too much. If there's a place I could be looking for updates on this feature please pass it on!
Do you know what the status is on this subgallery concept? Trying to implement the various work arounds via html galleries, P Bolchover's hack, etc are way too much for me- at this point if I want subgalleries it looks like I will either have to leave smugmug or wait for it to happen, or keep a customizer on retainer to update things for me for every new album which isn't viable. I desperately want to stay with smugmug, but 2 months after I've joined I still don't have a system that I personally can maintain for displaying my SM personal photos separately from my SM pro site, so I need to decide on a solution asap. I know there are lots of other features being implemented, and all these things take time, but I wanted to check on the status before I make a decision here. I'm so happy with how my pro site is looking on SM, but paying for yet another provider for my other stuff is too much. If there's a place I could be looking for updates on this feature please pass it on!
Kristi
I'm not arguing against more levels of sub-galleries, but you might want to remember that a second Smugmug account is the best and easiest way to make a nice place for both your personal and professional photos. That's what I ended up doing and it's really, really convenient.
If you're thinking "why should I have to pay for two accounts", then you might want to realize that a second account probably costs less per year than one visit by a customizer if you're having to pay someone and it's a fully supported mechanism for solving the problem. It has loads of advantages over any of the solutions that try to hack the appearance of two accounts out of one. Just another option to consider.
I'm not arguing against more levels of sub-galleries, but you might want to remember that a second Smugmug account is the best and easiest way to make a nice place for both your personal and professional photos. That's what I ended up doing and it's really, really convenient.
If you're thinking "why should I have to pay for two accounts", then you might want to realize that a second account probably costs less per year than one visit by a customizer if you're having to pay someone and it's a fully supported mechanism for solving the problem. It has loads of advantages over any of the solutions that try to hack the appearance of two accounts out of one. Just another option to consider.
Users shouldn't have to pay double for this kind of basic functionality (& they shouldnt have to cobble together code/hack their sites to make it work either, but thats another issue). Besides, he already said he cant be paying extra for a customizer/another provider. I'd imagine another SM account would fall under that.
I'm not arguing against more levels of sub-galleries, but you might want to remember that a second Smugmug account is the best and easiest way to make a nice place for both your personal and professional photos. That's what I ended up doing and it's really, really convenient.
If you're thinking "why should I have to pay for two accounts", then you might want to realize that a second account probably costs less per year than one visit by a customizer if you're having to pay someone and it's a fully supported mechanism for solving the problem. It has loads of advantages over any of the solutions that try to hack the appearance of two accounts out of one. Just another option to consider.
I totally see your point- if I was a Standard account user then I might just pay for another account. Your point about paying for a customizer is well taken too- in fact rather than get a customizer I've decided to continue to use my old photo provider service (which isn't expired yet) for my personal photos until Smugmug implements the increased levels. In fact the Standard level account doesn't allow me to customize my personal stuff to my satisfaction, so I'd need to pay for at least a Power account in addition to my Pro account now. That's a bit much for me.
Since I'm paying for a Pro level account, I have a higher expectation- when I researched what capabilities the various photo providers offer, I chose Smugmug because many people use it to host both personal and business sites from the same account. It wasn't clear before I signed up just how difficult that would be, but I'm still very happy with the SM community and service, so I'd prefer to stay and make it work if possible. And I already know that they've implemented the increased levels but are currently working out the harder part- the UI for it (Baldy posted that somewhere.)
I'm guessing that by the time my other service runs out in September, SM will have this sorted and then I'll be able to use the easier workarounds to customize both sides of my SM site. That's my hope anyway.
Andy,
.
.
.
If there's a place I could be looking for updates on this feature please pass it on!
Kristi
Welcome, Kristi!
We don't give exact dates. In fact, it's rare we talk about any features before they are released. But I can tell you that this one is important to us, and has the attention of our CEO & Chief Geek, Don, and all of us.
I know I'm a new kid on the block, but since I've paid for a Pro account, I feel like I should be able to weigh in on some small level.
I was truly upset when I found out that we can only go three deep: category -> subcategory -> gallery.
That's just nuts.
For those of us who shoot sports, that is truly inconvenient, and I simply dont buy the "people dont want to drill down through menus, so three should be enough" argument.
Here's an example:
Sports -> Swimming -> Team Name -> 2008 -> Tournament with Date -> Individual Competitor
That is impossible to do as it stands. I should be able to have n number of sports, with n number of teams, n number of anything.
I'm very glad the Smuggers are working on this, as I have read in another post the back-end is done, now they just need a decent UI.
I hate to say it, that if this cannot be done (it exists in pretty much every CMS-based imaging module, so why not SM?), I'm going to have to pack up and go elsewhere, which I dont want to do, b/c I find SM to be outstanding.
I just read jfriend's post from April 30, explaining how he uses SmugMug and how he *wishes* he could use it. I can only say "amen brother!"
I could not have said it better.
Just recently I uploaded a boatload of wedding photos, and then the client asked me to organize them in categories (galleries). The easiest way I can think of doing this is using the keywords to create virtual galleries... then all I'd have to do is create a VG using existing keywords: before the ceremony, ceremony, reception, cutting the cake, formals, etc.
He wanted to keep the "master" gallery untouched, hidden, but wanted subsets displayed. The only way I could do this was re-upload the images, since we don't have an option to "copy to gallery". Yikes. It's been a long time since I've used SM for events I've shot, and it was truly painful. Sure, I could have planned a bit better, but SM just didn't offer flexibility to do much else.
I see virtual galleries and an extended hierarchy as related, and I see a need for both. Maybe I don't fully understand all my options now, how I can do some fancy html hacking - but right now I don't see a way to display the levels such as: sports - town - year - sport - team. Ex: Sports - Lizard Lick - 2008 - baseball - Lizard Lickers. Sure - I could do sports as category, baseball as sub cat, and 2008 Lizard Lick team as gallery. But then you'll have many more galleries listed (as opposed to levels to click through).
Maybe virtual galleries would support what I'm trying to accomplish better than levels, such as showing all baseball photos, no matter the town or year. Or show all 2008 sports photos no matter the sport or town or team. If I could see examples, that would make it clearer for me!
We don't give exact dates. In fact, it's rare we talk about any features before they are released. But I can tell you that this one is important to us, and has the attention of our CEO & Chief Geek, Don, and all of us.
Thanks for the info Andy. I suppose you all prefer the "surprise! new feature!" approach to the "hey when is that feature ever going to be done" complaining. I'll subscribe to the release notes blog.
I can just dump all my photos in one gallery and "organize" virtually.
yes, and the important thing here would be the ability to see the same photo is several 'virtual' galleries without the need for duplication of said photo.
But I think that's what they said they are working on, is it not?
yes, and the important thing here would be the ability to see the same photo is several 'virtual' galleries without the need for duplication of said photo.
But I think that's what they said they are working on, is it not?
Yeah, they've been working on it for over a year! SmugIsland was more important though. Still do not understand why this was so important. Would love virtual galleries myself.
My Pictures : My Gear
I Reject Your Reality And Substitute My Own - Adam Savage
I suppose you all prefer the "surprise! new feature!
If you think about it, this isn't exactly true. We're here talking aobut it and giving some not-so-subtle hints, we're listening and acting
We won't give dates. But we will give amazing product and service and we'll continue our nearly 6 year track record of delivering on our customer requests. Multiple-levels of gallery organizing being one of them
Comments
So that'd be a vote for #2, yes?
These seem 95% the same to me. In the first, some sort of query based on previously set properies (keywords, dates, etc...) is used to identify which photos should be displayed in the virtual gallery. In the second, the user manually assigns a photo to a virtual gallery. If the manually assignment was implemented by assigning a type of keyword or property to the photo, then the two would be virtually identical in underlying implementation with the only difference being the UI for setting it up.
If I had to choose one, I'd rather my virtual gallery be based on keyword queries because I want to do as much organization of my images as possible in Lightroom before they get to Smugmug and then just have Smugmug display that. But, if you give me keyword queries, I figure I can always accomplish the second type also by just assigning a keyword in Smugmug and causing the image to get displayed somewhere. What I would really hope is that you do a generic implementation that meets the needs of both user interface options.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
It seems like if number #1 was implemented, then it could also cover scenario #2 with little extra work (famous last words...)
Let's say you set up a rule-based virtual gallery (scenario #1) - but for this particular case, instead of a rule that says "all photos with keyword = xyz, date between 01/01/2006 and 12/31/2007" the rule for the gallery would be "these specific photo ID's: photo1, photo5, photo9"
Sort of like an iTunes playlist - you can define a dynamic playlist that contains all song with 4 stars in a particular genre, or you can make a playlist with just the songs that you specifically placed in it.
It seems like you guys are tap dancing around the issue again & trying to offer another workaround "fix".
We're too busy listening, creating and implementing to dance, sorry!
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
I know this isn't a virtual gallery thread but I wanted to thank John for his excellent description of his workflow and need. I have more questions but will take them offline or to another thread.
If possible, I'd bring 'em out at the same time. Maybe with the new UI??
I'm one of those users who followed the thread but never posted. I'm excited to be able go even one level deeper. I'm also a Phanfare refugee, so I was forced into the sorting by year mentality over there. We didn't want to totally lose the grandparents by changing the organization when we jumped ship.
I think virtual galleries and category levels are quite related and neither should be designed without thinking about where you're going with the other. As we've already realized, doing virtual galleries might determine which photos show up in a virtual gallery, but it may have all the same display issues with hwo it's presented in the home page hierarchy. In fact, it may even create more demands because now there can be more views of the same photos.
So, I'll retract my request that you do one before the other. I think you should design an endpoint for where you want to get to with both because they are related. I personally think virtual galleries are way more powerful and open up way more display options than more levels of hierarchy so I'd prioritize them higher if I were choosing, but definitely design them together so you can end up with one unified design and not have to retrofit a new UI or infrastructure when the 2nd comes along.
If you're seriously considering virtual galleries, then I think you should open a new virtual gallery thread and ask for specific feedback on what people want to do with them. I have a bunch of ideas for them beyond what I've already shared that I could contribute there if you want.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
To me virtual galleries is more of definition #1. #2 seems like HTML pages, which are already available.
http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
Example: using shots from various protected galleries in a virtual 'portfollio' gallery.
And just for argument sake: How about giving all galleries the ability to display photos that actually live in other galleries? Too messy?
The security critics on the net will consider us of the devil if we do that and there will be blogs flaming us. We already allow external links for password-protected galleries and they can't understand why we do.
You can add me to the list of people who really wants virtual galleries, both manual and parameter-based.
I do need password protected virtual galleries, but I'm perfectly willing to keep things simple. One password for the master gallery that contains the images and all virtual galleries derived from it. For password protected galleries, I'm willing to only draw from one gallery. I would just upload all the images for my event to one password protected and hidden gallery and then all viewable galleries would be password protected virtual gallery subsets, formed by a keyword query on the master gallery.
I don't even begin to know how you could make a security story that would make sense if you allowed virtual gallery images to be drawn from a password protected gallery and the resulting virtual gallery had a different password or no password. It sounds way too easy to mess up (either in Smugmug design or in end-user setup). Maybe it's possible to figure out a design that could pass security muster, but it certainly wouldn't be easy to understand. And, anything in security that isn't easy to understand is easy to mess up.
Even for non-password protected galleries, I'd do something similar. For example for our Yellowstone vacation, I'd upload all the images to one master gallery that was not publicly visible. I'd then create a bunch of viewable sub-galleries as virtual galleries (animals, landscapes, geysers, family, etc...). These virtual galleries would all draw from the same master gallery via keyword query.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
My husband works in security and I could just see something like that ending up on Slashdot.
Kristi
I know this thread is a tad old, but I can confirm that one more level of hierarchy would be PERFECT for me. It'd let me do
Event
->2007
-->Renfaire
--->2008_06-07_dayone
---->Event1
---->Event2
---->Event3
Nothing is Old - it's rather current in fact
Thanks for your input.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Andy,
Do you know what the status is on this subgallery concept? Trying to implement the various work arounds via html galleries, P Bolchover's hack, etc are way too much for me- at this point if I want subgalleries it looks like I will either have to leave smugmug or wait for it to happen, or keep a customizer on retainer to update things for me for every new album which isn't viable.
Kristi
I'm not arguing against more levels of sub-galleries, but you might want to remember that a second Smugmug account is the best and easiest way to make a nice place for both your personal and professional photos. That's what I ended up doing and it's really, really convenient.
If you're thinking "why should I have to pay for two accounts", then you might want to realize that a second account probably costs less per year than one visit by a customizer if you're having to pay someone and it's a fully supported mechanism for solving the problem. It has loads of advantages over any of the solutions that try to hack the appearance of two accounts out of one. Just another option to consider.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
I totally see your point- if I was a Standard account user then I might just pay for another account. Your point about paying for a customizer is well taken too- in fact rather than get a customizer I've decided to continue to use my old photo provider service (which isn't expired yet) for my personal photos until Smugmug implements the increased levels. In fact the Standard level account doesn't allow me to customize my personal stuff to my satisfaction, so I'd need to pay for at least a Power account in addition to my Pro account now. That's a bit much for me.
Since I'm paying for a Pro level account, I have a higher expectation- when I researched what capabilities the various photo providers offer, I chose Smugmug because many people use it to host both personal and business sites from the same account. It wasn't clear before I signed up just how difficult that would be, but I'm still very happy with the SM community and service, so I'd prefer to stay and make it work if possible. And I already know that they've implemented the increased levels but are currently working out the harder part- the UI for it (Baldy posted that somewhere.)
I'm guessing that by the time my other service runs out in September, SM will have this sorted and then I'll be able to use the easier workarounds to customize both sides of my SM site. That's my hope anyway.
We don't give exact dates. In fact, it's rare we talk about any features before they are released. But I can tell you that this one is important to us, and has the attention of our CEO & Chief Geek, Don, and all of us.
Thanks in advance for your patience.
Subscribe to the feed of our Release Notes Blog:
http://blogs.smugmug.com/release-notes/
to stay current
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
I was truly upset when I found out that we can only go three deep: category -> subcategory -> gallery.
That's just nuts.
For those of us who shoot sports, that is truly inconvenient, and I simply dont buy the "people dont want to drill down through menus, so three should be enough" argument.
Here's an example:
Sports -> Swimming -> Team Name -> 2008 -> Tournament with Date -> Individual Competitor
That is impossible to do as it stands. I should be able to have n number of sports, with n number of teams, n number of anything.
I'm very glad the Smuggers are working on this, as I have read in another post the back-end is done, now they just need a decent UI.
I hate to say it, that if this cannot be done (it exists in pretty much every CMS-based imaging module, so why not SM?), I'm going to have to pack up and go elsewhere, which I dont want to do, b/c I find SM to be outstanding.
I respectfully bow out now...
I could not have said it better.
Just recently I uploaded a boatload of wedding photos, and then the client asked me to organize them in categories (galleries). The easiest way I can think of doing this is using the keywords to create virtual galleries... then all I'd have to do is create a VG using existing keywords: before the ceremony, ceremony, reception, cutting the cake, formals, etc.
He wanted to keep the "master" gallery untouched, hidden, but wanted subsets displayed. The only way I could do this was re-upload the images, since we don't have an option to "copy to gallery". Yikes. It's been a long time since I've used SM for events I've shot, and it was truly painful. Sure, I could have planned a bit better, but SM just didn't offer flexibility to do much else.
I see virtual galleries and an extended hierarchy as related, and I see a need for both. Maybe I don't fully understand all my options now, how I can do some fancy html hacking - but right now I don't see a way to display the levels such as: sports - town - year - sport - team. Ex: Sports - Lizard Lick - 2008 - baseball - Lizard Lickers. Sure - I could do sports as category, baseball as sub cat, and 2008 Lizard Lick team as gallery. But then you'll have many more galleries listed (as opposed to levels to click through).
Maybe virtual galleries would support what I'm trying to accomplish better than levels, such as showing all baseball photos, no matter the town or year. Or show all 2008 sports photos no matter the sport or town or team. If I could see examples, that would make it clearer for me!
-teresa
http://www.apple.com/support/ilife/tutorials/iphoto/ip3-3.html
I can just dump all my photos in one gallery and "organize" virtually.
Thanks for the info Andy. I suppose you all prefer the "surprise! new feature!" approach to the "hey when is that feature ever going to be done" complaining.
Kristi
yes, and the important thing here would be the ability to see the same photo is several 'virtual' galleries without the need for duplication of said photo.
But I think that's what they said they are working on, is it not?
Yeah, they've been working on it for over a year!
I Reject Your Reality And Substitute My Own - Adam Savage
If you think about it, this isn't exactly true. We're here talking aobut it and giving some not-so-subtle hints, we're listening and acting
We won't give dates. But we will give amazing product and service and we'll continue our nearly 6 year track record of delivering on our customer requests. Multiple-levels of gallery organizing being one of them
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter