What you're missing is that if there is a gallery description that is carefully crafted to display what you want to display in your gallery, then there is no way to separately control what FB and Google display as the summary of the gallery. If one has their own web page, these can be separately controlled to optimize the web experience for that page.
Same reason it didn't work to automatically grab data from the bio for the site meta description, it doesn't always work to automatically grab data from the visible gallery description for gallery meta description - they are slightly different functions and using one piece of data for both will not always give an optimized experience.
Don't think we have control over that, John. So we give a choice
Sorry - could you re-link that right here? Thanks.
Post #53 in this thread.
Plus, I believe there are also specific meta tags that can be set to specify what FB shows in the various fields for a link so you could even target FB separately from other uses of the meta tag. But, just letting site owners sett the gallery meta description differently from the visible gallery description would probably solve the issue.
Here's an example. I have a gallery where I'm offering free downloads for personal, non-commercial use. I use the gallery description to explain the terms of the free downloads in the gallery view. But, I don't want all this verbage showing in either the FB description of the Google search result description. In those places, I want a short description of what's in the gallery. Right now, I have no way to solve that problem because you're using one field for both uses (visible display and FB description) so whatever goes in one gets automatically stuck in the other even though they are completely different things.
Yes, the real question is how to do this for the few that need/want to change it (from time to time even) without complicating our UI?
You guys really need to go for a two level UI with beginner things in the default display and more advanced things available optionally for those who want them, but not not in the way for those who don't care. In the specific case of the gallery settings, there are lots of ways to implement it, but it could be a basic/advanced tab. For example, those sharpening settings sure don't belong on the basic page, but the max display size does.
Separating out basic from advanced features is used by many products for this very reason, both on the web and in traditional software - there's no need to invent something new, just find the existing technique that feels right for your situation.
You guys really need to go for a two level UI with beginner things in the default display and more advanced things available optionally for those who want them, but not not in the way for those who don't care. In the specific case of the gallery settings, there are lots of ways to implement it, but it could be a basic/advanced tab. For example, those sharpening settings sure don't belong on the basic page, but the max display size does.
Separating out basic from advanced features is used by many products for this very reason, both on the web and in traditional software - there's no need to invent something new, just find the existing technique that feels right for your situation.
Would LOVE to get there Thanks ever so much, John!
I'm sorry-- I had a brain glitch and was actually thinking about the other FB-share-thing... the thing where the whole ugly link ends up being the main feature of the post. (In my defense, there's too many share-"things"-- FB problems I mean, and too many ways to share, with none of them doing what you really want them to do imho, and that's why I get confused about all the different stuff going on) I can't even remember which one is going to give me the thumbs & which is not & with what gallery settings, and which is going to give me the whole ugly link, etc. Consequently, I've hardly used the share stuff. It's a bummer.
As far as the gallery description-- yes, for me it would sure help if the description were at the very least limited to a long sentence or so, with a ... just to show it continues, if it's a long one. I do have a few galleries with very long descriptions. They are all for good reason, as there's no other publicly visible place to put some needed info. for visitors. But yes, for FB sharing these are of little to no use, so a limit would help a lot. That said, John's proposal would probably be more ideal for pros, with separate places to put what gets shared.
I also think it's been hard for me and a lot of folks to sort out the distinctions between FB "like" and FB "share". I just wish it were all simpler. I'd be so happy w/ one good way to share/post each page... one that works handsomely. You get a gallery title (or photo title instead if you choose) which is the link, you choose a thumb, you decide what you want for description. You can share a photo, a gallery, or a category. The buttons are in decent places. I know, I know... some of this is FB's problem... just sayin', in an ideal world... that's my dream.
Yes, the real question is how to do this for the few that need/want to change it (from time to time even) without complicating our UI?
these really are the things which come with adding the stuff like FB before fully appreciating the ramifications. First there was the problem of the button itself causing issues for many users due to the cross site scripting and whatever else was happening. Now we have what should have been a full and obvious thing for the dev and design teams to be aware of right up front. Heck, Andy crack that whip...I am in a fog most of the time these days thanks to needed medication for my RA and another far more significant issue and I saw it right off once reading the issue.
This is one of the biggest headaches of all these, well, really all they are is a fancy wrapper for metrics tracking presented in a fashion to seem like a happy-fun time. But you know like anyone else the folks at FB only care about the metrics info they can sell. They really do not care what their needs to to other sites...which puts a company like SM or even a small mom'n'pop website w/o the resources to really dig into things.
I do bet though it was different at first but slowly and surely these "features" will begin to take over your business. Plus they present a constantly moving target for your dev and UI design folks...I mean those buttons are butt arse fugly...
I say every service needs it's own set of advanced fields...really, just jump head of them letting users decide what works for our code and needs. Obviously these marketing things are important, maybe even more so for the less technically inclined who can't hire an SEO consultant. But they need to be handled in a fashion to protect us users as much as possible.
Of course this is just off the top of my head being old and broke and broken...thanks for that...yeah I might as well blame SM for being old and broken...
Seriously though I don't envy the complexity of implications these "services" represent to your user trust & safety folks either. Remember, exposing a site to them will always have liability implications. I don't care but others might...just let my images work as I need them...oooohhhhh wait...
I agree that perhaps it's time to redesign the control panel part of things as well as the gallery setup page(s)...gee things are starting to look as complicated as eBay pages these days and their 10MB of metrics/3rd party served script code alone...and those are SMALL pages. Welcome to the modern web...have fun!
Plus, I believe there are also specific meta tags that can be set to specify what FB shows in the various fields for a link so you could even target FB separately from other uses of the meta tag. But, just letting site owners sett the gallery meta description differently from the visible gallery description would probably solve the issue.
Here's an example. I have a gallery where I'm offering free downloads for personal, non-commercial use. I use the gallery description to explain the terms of the free downloads in the gallery view. But, I don't want all this verbage showing in either the FB description of the Google search result description. In those places, I want a short description of what's in the gallery. Right now, I have no way to solve that problem because you're using one field for both uses (visible display and FB description) so whatever goes in one gets automatically stuck in the other even though they are completely different things.
Go paste a gallery link into your status and see what we fixed up for you. Just a few days ago.
Which way? I mean, should I copy & paste the link from my gallery that I find in the address bar? Or should I go through "Share" and get a gallery link that way? Along those lines, yesterday I tried the "get a link" thing for one single image in a public gallery. I posted it on my daughter's FB wall. However, you can't click on the link it provided to see the photo... all that comes up is a blank page & the url. But if you click on the post's thumbnail itself, the photo comes up as it should. Sorry, guess this should be in a different thread. Can't bear to start yet another FB thread though. This is the photo I tried to post: http://www.winsomeworks.com/Portfolio/AnnaLisaYoder-PhotoFavorites/6704667_LAjfv#916111796_qcUKX (it's the photo of a person in some deep tree roots)
It was stated in a previous post that you use the site meta if there is no gallery description.
I think the site meta is a much better choice over the gallery description in all cases!
FB description for the links should be short and sweet. There is typically a brief decription of the gallery in the title of the gallery (which will show on facebook as the clickable link) and then the site meta could be the brief text in the box that comes up on Facebook to describe where the person is clicking through to.
I have a feeling if you default to site meta rather than gallery description for this field, you would make a lot of users happy.
I'm sorry-- I had a brain glitch and was actually thinking about the other FB-share-thing... the thing where the whole ugly link ends up being the main feature of the post.
Go paste a gallery link into your status and see what we fixed up for you. Just a few days ago.
I think this is one in the same. Posting your gallery link into your status and not in the "link" wall publisher field = "the whole ugly link ends up being the main feature of the post"
It was stated in a previous post that you use the site meta if there is no gallery description.
I think the site meta is a much better choice over the gallery description in all cases!
FB description for the links should be short and sweet. There is typically a brief decription of the gallery in the title of the gallery (which will show on facebook as the clickable link) and then the site meta could be the brief text in the box that comes up on Facebook to describe where the person is clicking through to.
I have a feeling if you default to site meta rather than gallery description for this field, you would make a lot of users happy.
I disagree. Using a single meta description for your entire site gives you absolutely ZERO control over it for any gallery. At least this way, you get to decide how you want to handle it. It's best if they give you a separate field for the gallery meta description, but absent that, the gallery description is better than using the same meta description for every single page on your site.
I think this is one in the same. Posting your gallery link into your status and not in the "link" wall publisher field = "the whole ugly link ends up being the main feature of the post"
And, we will have the simple "Blue Square F" button to share links too in the future - the one you've asked for. The one requiring no app to be permissioned on FB. Stay tuned.
It's best if they give you a separate field for the gallery meta description,
Keep in mind, this would be at the cost of: 1)more sorcery time, 2) complicating the UI for the huge, huge percentage of people that just will use (and be happy with) their gallery description, 3) more questions at our help desk, twitter, facebook, dgrin
We hear all your requests for new addons and features but sometimes we don't do them for a variety of reasons. We'll keep watching and monitoring how folks use and post to Facebook. And what's available via their APIs. We do have many more enhancements planned.
I disagree. Using a single meta description for your entire site gives you absolutely ZERO control over it for any gallery. At least this way, you get to decide how you want to handle it. It's best if they give you a separate field for the gallery meta description, but absent that, the gallery description is better than using the same meta description for every single page on your site.
I meant primarily as a "for now" option until they are able to offer something similar to your suggestion that involves some work and time on their end.
I wonder if it would be easy to give us a choice between those two options (gallery description or site meta) as a "for now" option.
All in all, the description is not a huge issue for me just a "would be nice" sort of thing.
I can imagine it must be frustrating for so many companies to have to deal with Facebook in this manner. But they've been successful in proving themselves a necessary "evil".
John, you've mentioned that Facebook has codes that allow SmugMug to control aspects of the site. Are we not able to somehow implement the code into our own customizations? If so, I wouldn't mind looking into how to do that once I have some extra time.
Very happy to hear we will soon have a clean and easy facebook share option!
I meant primarily as a "for now" option until they are able to offer something similar to your suggestion that involves some work and time on their end.
I wonder if it would be easy to give us a choice between those two options (gallery description or site meta) as a "for now" option.
All in all, the description is not a huge issue for me just a "would be nice" sort of thing.
I can imagine it must be frustrating for so many companies to have to deal with Facebook in this manner. But they've been successful in proving themselves a necessary "evil".
John, you've mentioned that Facebook has codes that allow SmugMug to control aspects of the site. Are we not able to somehow implement the code into our own customizations? If so, I wouldn't mind looking into how to do that once I have some extra time.
Very happy to hear we will soon have a clean and easy facebook share option!
No, you cannot implement the FB codes in your customization. It has to be in the page as it comes from Smugmug's server.
I couldn't find the preview function, I do however see the link function on the left side and then the attach function. :bash
I guess it doesn't really matter now, as long as I know it won't show.
Now I have to figure out how to link to my facebook page.
Apparently I am not the only Shawn Kraus.
I think I just have to enter a username and then use that after the facebook url.
Just paste your link - it won't post till you hit the post button. But you can see what will be posted
Andy, could you let me know which method I'm supposed to try in post # 70 (my detailed question is in #74?) I'd like to try, but it wasn't clear to me exactly what I'm supposed to try.
Which way? I mean, should I copy & paste the link from my gallery that I find in the address bar? Or should I go through "Share" and get a gallery link that way? Along those lines, yesterday I tried the "get a link" thing for one single image in a public gallery. I posted it on my daughter's FB wall. However, you can't click on the link it provided to see the photo... all that comes up is a blank page & the url. But if you click on the post's thumbnail itself, the photo comes up as it should. Sorry, guess this should be in a different thread. Can't bear to start yet another FB thread though. This is the photo I tried to post: http://www.winsomeworks.com/Portfolio/AnnaLisaYoder-PhotoFavorites/6704667_LAjfv#916111796_qcUKX (it's the photo of a person in some deep tree roots)
I only tried the copy & paste way so far-- but yes, definitely a big improvement... MUCH prettier! Thanks! I still don't like how so much of the description shows up, because in the gallery I posted, I have a longer one. I didn't notice a way to edit it when posting. However, I wasn't attentive to that til too late, so next time I'll pay better attention & try editing it since I think you said it's edit-able.
We covered this before Just click in the description on facebook, it turns yellow. Edit away.
Yeah, I know-- however, the reason it wasn't evident to me, or a light-bulb didn't go off in my head at the time, is this: when I pasted the link in, the description was only partially showing anyway. It was short like this: Blahblahblahblahblahblah... So the " ... " led me to think that's all that would show when I posted. That's why the thought to edit it did not click... probably typical of what most people would think, right? Unfortunately though, once the post goes live, it does show the entire thing. I doubt most people would even think to edit what they do not even see!
Yeah, I know-- however, the reason it wasn't evident to me, or a light-bulb didn't go off in my head at the time, is this: when I pasted the link in, the description was only partially showing anyway. It was short like this: Blahblahblahblahblahblah... So the " ... " led me to think that's all that would show when I posted. That's why the thought to edit it did not click... probably typical of what most people would think, right? Unfortunately though, once the post goes live, it does show the entire thing. I doubt most people would even think to edit what they do not even see!
Hi Anna Lisa, I'm sorry I can't control Facebook's UI Please just click in there and edit to your heart's content.
Comments
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Plus, I believe there are also specific meta tags that can be set to specify what FB shows in the various fields for a link so you could even target FB separately from other uses of the meta tag. But, just letting site owners sett the gallery meta description differently from the visible gallery description would probably solve the issue.
Here's an example. I have a gallery where I'm offering free downloads for personal, non-commercial use. I use the gallery description to explain the terms of the free downloads in the gallery view. But, I don't want all this verbage showing in either the FB description of the Google search result description. In those places, I want a short description of what's in the gallery. Right now, I have no way to solve that problem because you're using one field for both uses (visible display and FB description) so whatever goes in one gets automatically stuck in the other even though they are completely different things.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Separating out basic from advanced features is used by many products for this very reason, both on the web and in traditional software - there's no need to invent something new, just find the existing technique that feels right for your situation.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
As far as the gallery description-- yes, for me it would sure help if the description were at the very least limited to a long sentence or so, with a ... just to show it continues, if it's a long one. I do have a few galleries with very long descriptions. They are all for good reason, as there's no other publicly visible place to put some needed info. for visitors. But yes, for FB sharing these are of little to no use, so a limit would help a lot. That said, John's proposal would probably be more ideal for pros, with separate places to put what gets shared.
I also think it's been hard for me and a lot of folks to sort out the distinctions between FB "like" and FB "share". I just wish it were all simpler. I'd be so happy w/ one good way to share/post each page... one that works handsomely. You get a gallery title (or photo title instead if you choose) which is the link, you choose a thumb, you decide what you want for description. You can share a photo, a gallery, or a category. The buttons are in decent places. I know, I know... some of this is FB's problem... just sayin', in an ideal world... that's my dream.
DayBreak, my Folk Music Group (some free mp3s!) http://daybreakfolk.com
Go paste a gallery link into your status and see what we fixed up for you. Just a few days ago.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
these really are the things which come with adding the stuff like FB before fully appreciating the ramifications. First there was the problem of the button itself causing issues for many users due to the cross site scripting and whatever else was happening. Now we have what should have been a full and obvious thing for the dev and design teams to be aware of right up front. Heck, Andy crack that whip...I am in a fog most of the time these days thanks to needed medication for my RA and another far more significant issue and I saw it right off once reading the issue.
This is one of the biggest headaches of all these, well, really all they are is a fancy wrapper for metrics tracking presented in a fashion to seem like a happy-fun time. But you know like anyone else the folks at FB only care about the metrics info they can sell. They really do not care what their needs to to other sites...which puts a company like SM or even a small mom'n'pop website w/o the resources to really dig into things.
I do bet though it was different at first but slowly and surely these "features" will begin to take over your business. Plus they present a constantly moving target for your dev and UI design folks...I mean those buttons are butt arse fugly...
I say every service needs it's own set of advanced fields...really, just jump head of them letting users decide what works for our code and needs. Obviously these marketing things are important, maybe even more so for the less technically inclined who can't hire an SEO consultant. But they need to be handled in a fashion to protect us users as much as possible.
Of course this is just off the top of my head being old and broke and broken...thanks for that...yeah I might as well blame SM for being old and broken...
Seriously though I don't envy the complexity of implications these "services" represent to your user trust & safety folks either. Remember, exposing a site to them will always have liability implications. I don't care but others might...just let my images work as I need them...oooohhhhh wait...
I agree that perhaps it's time to redesign the control panel part of things as well as the gallery setup page(s)...gee things are starting to look as complicated as eBay pages these days and their 10MB of metrics/3rd party served script code alone...and those are SMALL pages. Welcome to the modern web...have fun!
+6*10^23 agree
See my replies. Thanks.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
DayBreak, my Folk Music Group (some free mp3s!) http://daybreakfolk.com
I already did but hey you had a long day...so perhaps it is best left as found.
I think the site meta is a much better choice over the gallery description in all cases!
FB description for the links should be short and sweet. There is typically a brief decription of the gallery in the title of the gallery (which will show on facebook as the clickable link) and then the site meta could be the brief text in the box that comes up on Facebook to describe where the person is clicking through to.
I have a feeling if you default to site meta rather than gallery description for this field, you would make a lot of users happy.
I think this is one in the same. Posting your gallery link into your status and not in the "link" wall publisher field = "the whole ugly link ends up being the main feature of the post"
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
And, we will have the simple "Blue Square F" button to share links too in the future - the one you've asked for. The one requiring no app to be permissioned on FB. Stay tuned.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Keep in mind, this would be at the cost of: 1)more sorcery time, 2) complicating the UI for the huge, huge percentage of people that just will use (and be happy with) their gallery description, 3) more questions at our help desk, twitter, facebook, dgrin
We hear all your requests for new addons and features but sometimes we don't do them for a variety of reasons. We'll keep watching and monitoring how folks use and post to Facebook. And what's available via their APIs. We do have many more enhancements planned.
Thanks.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Why not try it? You don't actually have to post the link on Facebook, just use their preview function.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
I meant primarily as a "for now" option until they are able to offer something similar to your suggestion that involves some work and time on their end.
I wonder if it would be easy to give us a choice between those two options (gallery description or site meta) as a "for now" option.
All in all, the description is not a huge issue for me just a "would be nice" sort of thing.
I can imagine it must be frustrating for so many companies to have to deal with Facebook in this manner. But they've been successful in proving themselves a necessary "evil".
John, you've mentioned that Facebook has codes that allow SmugMug to control aspects of the site. Are we not able to somehow implement the code into our own customizations? If so, I wouldn't mind looking into how to do that once I have some extra time.
Very happy to hear we will soon have a clean and easy facebook share option!
DayBreak, my Folk Music Group (some free mp3s!) http://daybreakfolk.com
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
Just paste your link - it won't post till you hit the post button. But you can see what will be posted
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
DayBreak, my Folk Music Group (some free mp3s!) http://daybreakfolk.com
You can do either, Anna Lisa. Paste a gallery link, like this:
http://www.winsomeworks.com/Portfolio/AnnaLisaYoder-PhotoFavorites/6704667_LAjfv#268304062_UN9w4
or go and use Share>Be Social.
Up to you....
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
DayBreak, my Folk Music Group (some free mp3s!) http://daybreakfolk.com
We covered this before
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
DayBreak, my Folk Music Group (some free mp3s!) http://daybreakfolk.com
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter