Slideshow Changes?

SamirD · May 10, 2011

I guess this happened a while ago, but since I haven't had time to process photos for months now, I've missed it. I tried some searches, but it didn't come up with much.

So apparently there's a new slideshow module on the backend--ShizamSlides-2011042105.swf. As opposed to the old one, ShizamSlides-2007090601.swf. So what's changed between these two? I've got A LOT of embedded code using the old one. Would I need to change those? What's the benefit of the new one?

Thank you in advance.

Andy · May 10, 2011

Sam revs the slideshow all the time. You should never need to change the swf #, we do that automatically via the system for you.

SamirD · May 10, 2011

I've got links hard-coded to the swf #s. I've written my own javascript to generate the exact embed code I need if I give it a gallery link. Would I need to be concerned? Is there any documentation on the different changes between the revisions?

jfriend · May 10, 2011

SamirD wrote: »

I've got links hard-coded to the swf #s. I've written my own javascript to generate the exact embed code I need if I give it a gallery link. Would I need to be concerned? Is there any documentation on the different changes between the revisions?

If you look in the page source, the current swf # is in a javascript variable. You could pick it up from there. Presumably the revision number changes whenever the code is changed (features are added or bugs fixed).

Here's what is in the page source:

SM.appVersion = {
        'MacDaddy' : '3.0.4.510',
        [color=red]'ShizamSlides' : '2011042105',[/color]
        'ninjaLoader' : '2010100701',
        'ShizVidz' : '2011030702',
        'clipboardSmuggler' : '2008110602',
        'yui': SM.env.yui2.version,
        'flashUploader': '2011032404'
      };

Shizam · May 10, 2011

Hey SamirD,
Yea, we rev the slideshow swf occasionally, as long as you reference the swf the same way we do you'll always load the latest one, so like this:

...smugmug.com/ria/ShizamSlides-2011042105.swf

even if you have:

...smugmug.com/ria/ShizamSlides-1942042105.swf

it'll pull the latest swf unless you have the older swf cached on your computer or its still cached in the CDN. However, if you reference the swf this way:

...smugmug.com/img/ria/ShizamSlides/2011042105.swf

that is a hard link directly to that version of the swf and it will never change (so don't do that).

Sam

SamirD · May 10, 2011

Interesting. Never saw those before.

But like I said, I'm hard-coding the swf version based on this script:
www.huntsvillecarscene.com/inline.htm

It's kinda broken at the moment as the key length is now 6 digits vs 5, which you warned me about hard-coding years ago John.

But you get the gist of it by looking at the source.

My concern is that I'd be missing some functionality/introducing bugs by having an older swf embedded, so I'm looking for a changelog or something of that nature so I know when I need to change all the 1000+ links that use a particular version of the swf. It's a manual process that will literally take a week.

On a side note, when I did a view source I also saw the following:

SM.tracking = {
        ga: {
          smugmug: 'UA-138402-3',
          user: ''
        },
        statcounter: {
        },
        sitemeter: {
        },
        quantcast: {
          smugmug: 'p-33GsugQTR-pOM'
        }
      };

Does this mean SM has a way to input statcounter and sitemeter codes like Google Analytics?

SamirD · May 10, 2011

Shizam wrote: »

Hey SamirD,
Yea, we rev the slideshow swf occasionally, as long as you reference the swf the same way we do you'll always load the latest one, so like this:

...smugmug.com/ria/ShizamSlides-2011042105.swf

even if you have:

...smugmug.com/ria/ShizamSlides-1942042105.swf

it'll pull the latest swf unless you have the older swf cached on your computer or its still cached in the CDN. However, if you reference the swf this way:

...smugmug.com/img/ria/ShizamSlides/2011042105.swf

that is a hard link directly to that version of the swf and it will never change (so don't do that).

Sam

Thank you very much! I don't reference it directly, so looks like I'm good to go.

Are there any new parameters introduced on newer versions?

SamirD · July 16, 2011

Bump. I got an email from a user that they can't see the slideshow using the code I sent them. I went to the original page, and I can't see the slideshow anymore. And I checked some others around the same time and am having the same issues.

Can anyone see the slideshows on these pages?
http://www.huntsvillecarscene.com/calendar.php?do=getinfo&e=1880&day=2010-9-11&c=1
http://www.huntsvillecarscene.com/showthread.php?t=3146
http://www.huntsvillecarscene.com/showthread.php?t=3605

I'm rebooting and seeing if it helps.

Andy · July 16, 2011

SamirD wrote: »

Bump. I got an email from a user that they can't see the slideshow using the code I sent them. I went to the original page, and I can't see the slideshow anymore. And I checked some others around the same time and am having the same issues.

Can anyone see the slideshows on these pages?
http://www.huntsvillecarscene.com/calendar.php?do=getinfo&e=1880&day=2010-9-11&c=1
http://www.huntsvillecarscene.com/showthread.php?t=3146
http://www.huntsvillecarscene.com/showthread.php?t=3605

I'm rebooting and seeing if it helps.

I don't see any slideshows there. But I'm not sure how you're embedding them, either.

SamirD · July 17, 2011

Standard embed code that I've been using since 2009. What's changed besides what was mentioned in this thread?

Andy · July 17, 2011

SamirD wrote: »

Standard embed code that I've been using since 2009. What's changed besides what was mentioned in this thread?

Nothing afaik.

SamirD · July 17, 2011

Then why have all the embedded slideshows stopped working for everyone?

This is a BIG problem for me.

Andy · July 17, 2011

SamirD wrote: »

Then why have all the embedded slideshows stopped working for everyone? This is a BIG problem for me.

I used Share>Show Off and can embed your slideshow just fine in our forum:
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?p=1643992#post1643992

jfriend · July 17, 2011

SamirD wrote: »

Then why have all the embedded slideshows stopped working for everyone? This is a BIG problem for me.

I suspect this might have broken when Smugmug stopped allowing query parameters on the URL. The main difference between your embed HTML and what showoff produces is that yours uses query parameters and the showoff code sets flashVar. It isn't an issue with the .swf you're using because your older one still works when replaced into the current show off code.

If you look here: http://jsfiddle.net/jfriend00/22sxK/, you'll see the first one works and yours is below which doesn't work. You can examine the differences.

SamirD · July 17, 2011

jfriend wrote: »

I suspect this might have broken when Smugmug stopped allowing query parameters on the URL. The main difference between your embed HTML and what showoff produces is that yours uses query parameters and the showoff code sets flashVar. It isn't an issue with the .swf you're using because your older one still works when replaced into the current show off code.

If you look here: http://jsfiddle.net/jfriend00/22sxK/, you'll see the first one works and yours is below which doesn't work. You can examine the differences.

Thank you very much John! Do you know when this change was made?

I wish an announcement was made on this or a correct answer given to me by SM. It broke an important feature on my site, and I've got literally hundreds of slideshow code I have to change to restore proper functionality, which will take me weeks to do.

jfriend · July 17, 2011

SamirD wrote: »

Thank you very much John! Do you know when this change was made?

I wish an announcement was made on this or a correct answer given to me by SM. It broke an important feature on my site, and I've got literally hundreds of slideshow code I have to change to restore proper functionality, which will take me weeks to do.

I just know that some things on my site and some of my publicly shared customizations broke around a month ago and the reason they broke is that query parameters were no longer permitted in gallery URLs. It's just a guess of mine that that is the same issue affecting your slideshow embed code.

Andy · July 17, 2011

SamirD wrote: »

Thank you very much John! Do you know when this change was made?

I wish an announcement was made on this or a correct answer given to me by SM. It broke an important feature on my site, and I've got literally hundreds of slideshow code I have to change to restore proper functionality, which will take me weeks to do.

how is your slideshow code constructed, exactly?

SamirD · July 17, 2011

Andy wrote: »

how is your slideshow code constructed, exactly?

http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=1608900&postcount=3
http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=1608926&postcount=6

Andy · July 17, 2011

SamirD wrote: »

http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=1608900&postcount=3
http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=1608926&postcount=6

I'll ask Sam to take a look - but it sure appears to me that you're doing your links in a way that I've never seen before

SamirD · July 18, 2011

I originally used SmugShowBuilder (http://smugshowbuilder.appspot.com/) to learn what all the parameters did and then just wrote a simple javascript that would generate the html for me with just the parameters I wanted. It worked fine since June of 2009 and as recently as May of 2011. Looks like SmugShowBuilder was updated, but I don't know when. There's no announcement in the discussion thread.

If John is right, the newer way of parsing slideshow variables just broke every embedded SM slideshow out there that used the old parameter format.

And the $#%&% Simple uploader choked on another big upload batch...again. What a way to start a week...

jfriend · July 18, 2011

SamirD wrote: »

I originally used SmugShowBuilder (http://smugshowbuilder.appspot.com/) to learn what all the parameters did and then just wrote a simple javascript that would generate the html for me with just the parameters I wanted. It worked fine since June of 2009 and as recently as May of 2011. Looks like SmugShowBuilder was updated, but I don't know when. There's no announcement in the discussion thread.

If John is right, the newer way of parsing slideshow variables just broke every embedded SM slideshow out there that used the old parameter format.

And the $#%&% Simple uploader choked on another big upload batch...again. What a way to start a week...

For reference, here's the embedded slideshow doc. It does not show the use of the query parameter format. The wiki allows you to look at the version history of that page. Version 2 of the document from 2007 does show the query parameter format. It looks like this doc was changed to NOT use the query parameter format any more in May 11, 2009 (~ 2 years ago).

Shizam · July 18, 2011

We've recently changed our URL format for fetching albums/images and the slideshow has been updated to accommodate that, I see you mention that you hardcode in the url to the swf such that it won't ever get a new version if it, this may be the problem you're running into.

SamirD · July 18, 2011

jfriend wrote: »

For reference, here's the embedded slideshow doc. It does not show the use of the query parameter format. The wiki allows you to look at the version history of that page. Version 2 of the document from 2007 does show the query parameter format. It looks like this doc was changed to NOT use the query parameter format any more in May 11, 2009 (~ 2 years ago).

Thank you for the research John. I spent so much time on dgrin looking at all the slideshow threads back when I first did this, and I didn't even run into the doc until today. I'm sure I could search and find where I originally found the query parameter format, but it doesn't matter. Looks like I have a lot of work on top of my already overwhelming workload. I never seem to get a break.

Thank you again for all the research and the link to the doc page. That page will help a lot going forward.

SamirD · July 18, 2011

Shizam wrote: »

We've recently changed our URL format for fetching albums/images and the slideshow has been updated to accommodate that, I see you mention that you hardcode in the url to the swf such that it won't ever get a new version if it, this may be the problem you're running into.

Where else has this been changed?

Since I've already got broken things to fix, I might as well redo everything.

I hardcode to this slideshow url, so it should pick up the new version just fine:
http://www.smugmug.com/ria/ShizamSlides-2007090601.swf

The format change of the url seems to be what broke everything. Oh well, it shouldn't have been working in the first place. I just wish I would've known about this sooner, like in my off season when I had time for this...

jfriend · July 19, 2011

Andy, here's another slideshow user who's slideshow is busted: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?p=1645122#post1645122. Apparently, you guys changed something that broke older slideshow embed code. This isn't just hacked slideshow code. This is the way embedded slideshows were documented to work in the wiki until about 2 years ago (you can follow the revisions to see when it was changed). Did Smug do this change intentionally? Or is it something that accidentally broke that you think you should fix?

I wonder how many Smugmug slideshows out on the web are busted and people don't know it.

Shizam · July 19, 2011

A change was made to how we redirect older swf requests such that the 301 response was dropping the url arguments, this is being fixed now. In addition to that, you should update your swf requests to use the new style which uses flashvars as this allows fetching of the swf from the local/CDN cache which will load your slideshow _much_ faster.

jfriend · July 19, 2011

Shizam wrote: »

A change was made to how we redirect older swf requests such that the 301 response was dropping the url arguments, this is being fixed now. In addition to that, you should update your swf requests to use the new style which uses flashvars as this allows fetching of the swf from our CDN cache which will load your slideshow _much_ faster.

Thanks Shizam for tracking this down and for the explanation on why the newer format is better - makes sense.

Andy · July 19, 2011

jfriend wrote: »

Thanks Shizam for tracking this down and for the explanation on why the newer format is better - makes sense.

SamirD · July 20, 2011

Shizam wrote: »

A change was made to how we redirect older swf requests such that the 301 response was dropping the url arguments, this is being fixed now. In addition to that, you should update your swf requests to use the new style which uses flashvars as this allows fetching of the swf from the local/CDN cache which will load your slideshow _much_ faster.

So the older arguement format will work again?

I've got a BIG client I'm going to be approaching for advertising sales, and I have to manually fix all this if there isn't a change in the works. Thursday 3pm is my meeting.

Thank you for the explanation of how the new format will help load times. This was always a pretty big request for those of us using slideshows.

SamirD · July 20, 2011

jfriend wrote: »

I wonder how many Smugmug slideshows out on the web are busted and people don't know it.

A quick google search resulted in over 3000 results:
http://www.google.com/search?q=.swf%3FAlbumID%3D&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#sclient=psy&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=6zw&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&source=hp&q=%22.swf%3FAlbumID%3D%22+smugmug&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=804c136e9e03bc4a&biw=1024&bih=607

On my site, google only found 4, even though there's almost 300, so I'm sure there's more out there.

Shizam · July 21, 2011

Hey All,
The fix for this is live and it has indeed fixed BrettA's banner slideshow:

http://intersiteimaging.smugmug.com/

Slideshow Changes?

Comments