It may sound like pointless complaining and negativity, but I think it is anything BUT that. First of all... it worked, hehe. Sort of. Let's be honest. Without the length and tone of this thread, "Photo Sharing By Smugmug" would still be at the bottom of every site.
When Baldy asked what could be done with the footer, I laid out a very clear set of criteria that would work for me. I don't consider that complaining either.
There is, however, one thing that I *do* think still needs an apology and/or explanation. Baldy stated that an engineer made some fix that accidentally broke the footer removal CSS. That is blatantly untrue, it was an obviously targeted piece of code. He said it was explained to him that way, so I believe he was lied to, not that he himself is lying. However, I have a severe problem with lying, I always have. I want to see them own their mistake and move on.
I don't mean to imply that the opinions voiced were doing so pointlessly. Only that the tone and persistent negativity wasn't constructive. I also don't feel that the emotional response was productive. True, it appears to have worked. However, the situation isn't finalized so therefore has yet to reach a conclusion. Basically, we've been provided a way to keep the peace until the situation could be better examined and the course of action determined by SmugMug. Honestly, the same resolution could've been achieved by the length of the thread without us all freaking out so hardcore. I'm guilty too despite my initial comment being more neutral in nature.
Providing the suggests that would work best for you isn't complaining. I didn't single out anyone in my post. Only was hoping there would be less arguing, blaming and negativity and instead more working together on a mutually beneficial resolution for us all, by us all.
As for the code being intentional (or not) and Baldy's awareness (or lack thereof) - we don't have true proof of either and what would it matter? We may pay for SmugMug, but we don't own it. It's technically their code. However, I didn't agree with the way it was so suddenly done under the radar considering the layout and claims of individuality on the homepage for new Smuggers. That issue definitely needs to be addressed to not only prevent future confusion, but also to prevent SmugMug from future legal issues. Regardless, the true issue with that code was the timing and the way it was implemented. Hopefully, transparency will return to Smugland after this and all will be sunshine and rainbows.
Photographic Artist Amber Flowers of Soul Gaze Photography, LLC.
SmugMug setup & customization services. Contact me! Proud & helpful Smugger since 2009. Please hire me for Support Hero!!
I first contacted Jill V. in April 2011 & I even wrote a poem.
Mr. McAskill's replies fully deserved our replies. This is what happens when you try to engage in unlawful business practices. Mr. McAskill is a GREAT entrepreneur. He MADE this company. I wish him and his corporation to be 100 time more prosperous! However this was (and still is) a wrong business decision. Soul - please understand, this is business, Mr. McAskill does not care about your fillings. He cares about the bottom line for his corporation and this is how it should be. If Mr. McAskill knew that he is doing the right thing - the branding would be prominently and clearly displayed on YOUR pages in bright bold red with no way to remove it with no option to even discuss it:)
It surprises me you are thanking SmugMug for, basically, giving you, TEMPORALLY, what is rightfully yours. You are Paying for it!!! Do you understand it??? You are correct, we are all different. I, for one, will not bend over and thank anyone for not stealing from me.
The change did not just feel violating - it is in violation of the law and opens this company for litigation actions. If you really so much in love with this company and you still want to enjoy services they provide - then I suggest you put more pressure on them here rather than someone will put another form of pressure via legal channels.
At the end I agree with your constructive suggestions- after all this is what I have been saying to begin with (and this is my second round on this issue):
Option 1- Abide and honor your advertised services:
Provide ability to remove branding from ALL customers pages via the existing interface. Let's say in the Settings area where there is currently a switch for the SmugMug Footer. Since there are a few very important customers who adore SM branding and we, under no circumstances, want to piss them off - let the SM Branding be ON by default and be OFF with a simple switch of the slider.
Option 2 - Change the website by removing ALL graphics and verbiage that advertise "no ads" features and "personal... you can be you" lies. Yes, these are lies.
I agree we had the right to voice our opinions. However, many opinions were evolving additionally negative and repetitive despite SmugMug altering the wording per requests and making obvious effort to appease the many voices in this thread. I agree it is business and both sides must do what is best for them. SmugMug is also ran by humans. Mistakes are always a possibility. I also agree with your comment that had they wanted to, the branding could've been more prominent. However, the prominence has rarely changed over the years so it's not really an issue. It's just how suddenly the code was 'broken' and branding 'forced' upon everyone behind the scenes despite bigger bugs needing to be squashed.
Please don't assume that I am thankful for the branding or don't realize the expense of my Smugsite or relish feeling violated. I definitely feel that those of us who pay for the higher pro accounts, should be provided with better options and I suggested my thoughts in the post that warranted your response.
If the issue if legality has such power, than should we not also worry? How many services provided unlimited storage? I personally would prefer to NOT see SmugMug be involved in any legal dispute over the lack of clarification via terms and services displayed on their website. However, I do understand the potential for such reaction exists and am hopeful they will promptly find a resolution to ensure this doesn't happen.
I'm glad you agree with my constructive ideas and am hopeful such ideas will be considered and implemented in a way be best for all sides.
Photographic Artist Amber Flowers of Soul Gaze Photography, LLC.
SmugMug setup & customization services. Contact me! Proud & helpful Smugger since 2009. Please hire me for Support Hero!!
I first contacted Jill V. in April 2011 & I even wrote a poem.
I think I will start crying soon:) It's like pulling teeth:) Look Tomoscott, Ferguson, Soul... I am not trying to make you take my side, to make you think like me, or to make you like things I like! I respect and welcome opinion of others. I like to discuss others point of view. But what makes me cry is when I see someone refusing to accept that 2+2=4. Tomoscott, I am not saying that it is super easy to win this litigation process. However it's a pity that you do not see it as a big problem. Please, please, just imagine you signed a deal to buy a new vehicle and the contract spells out that 5 oil changes are included in the total price. half a year later you come back for the oil change and the dealership tells you that you have to actually pay for it- they give free oil changes only for red colored vehicles.. and yours is silver... sorry. I want to see you being so "understanding" and "accepting" of that hypothetical situation.
By the way - there are much than just "truth in advertising laws" that you are referring to. Look, it is simple- when someone slaps me on one cheek, I, personally, do not turn to them the other cheek.
Please don't cry! I understand your frustration and respect your enthusiasm. Obviously, the legal end of this issue is very important to you and it should be. The outcome of such a situation would affect us all. It would affect the future of SmugMug. However, I don't think they intentionally left themselves open for such legal harm or dissidence. There was always a grey area with the SmugMug branding notice. It was never officially addressed before this change was implemented so many of us felt violated to have paid such a high fee only to be forced to endure a change we did not request. I'm sure the situation will be well covered asap considering. We're paying money to deserve to be 'smug' with our websites. Most prefer to not show that they are 'hosted', but look more professional as if we are doing it all ourselves and I totally understand that.
Photographic Artist Amber Flowers of Soul Gaze Photography, LLC.
SmugMug setup & customization services. Contact me! Proud & helpful Smugger since 2009. Please hire me for Support Hero!!
I first contacted Jill V. in April 2011 & I even wrote a poem.
Whether or not I can compel any real action - you do not know me, and, it is not really a point or discussion here what I can and cannot do. This is not about me, this is about ....
Yes, it is.
You have repeatedly called their actions illegal. That's different from "doing something I don't like".
If you feel so strongly it is illegal, just follow the appropriate path to get it resolved in the courts.
When I say I do not think you can compel action, I did not mean anything about you personally, or you abilities or resources. I believe the nature of the dispute just doesn't lend itself to litigation or complaints to the FTC. But by all means go for it, and let us know. I'd love to be proven wrong, and will apologize for being a doubter.
As for the code being intentional (or not) and Baldy's awareness (or lack thereof) - we don't have true proof of either and what would it matter?
What would it matter? How's about Trust?
We have an engineer who intentionally changed the code. That code itself showed the specific intent - to force the footer link/ad by circumventing our CSS mods to force us to adhere to a rule that didn't really exist. That engineer was either working to order or was working without orders - either way, I no longer trust that engineer. And because I don't know which one it was, I can't trust any of them any more.
Nearly 2 weeks ago "Photo Sharing By SmugMug" appeared.
A few days later that was changed to "Powered by SmugMug". I'm happy with that.
But who knows what could be coded to display in the footer (or, indeed, anywhere on my site) next week? "Powered by Yahoo! YUI", perhaps? It's not so far from the truth. Or maybe it could be something more sinister. And I'd have no forewarning and no defence until it had happened. It's not as if it couldn't happen - SM's rogue engineer has already set the precedent. That, to me, is unacceptable.
We're told that we can't have open commenting because of a perceived security risk from "outside", yet I stand open and defenceless while a SM insider could decide to "enhance" my site with just about anything he/she wants.
Trust. It's at an all-time low right now. The right words from the right people could go a long way to restoring Trust, but the right people just don't appear to care, and don't seem to be able to find the right words.
Such much!
We drive cars by Ford, Mercedes, BMW. Do you peel off their logos?
We shoot with Canon, Nikon, and other cameras - I'm willing to bet money that none of those complaining here take off the logos on their camera gear...
Tripods by RRS, meters by Sekonic, calibration by X-rite, photo printing by Bay Photo.
Shoes by Nike, watches by Tag Heuer, clothing by Ralph Lauren or Tommy Hilfiger or Donna Karan.
Y'all are worried about "Powered by SmugMug" in the footer? Go shoot more and stop worrying about the small stuff.
We drive cars by Ford, Mercedes, BMW. Do you peel off their logos?
We shoot with Canon, Nikon, and other cameras - I'm willing to bet money that none of those complaining here take off the logos on their camera gear...
Tripods by RRS, meters by Sekonic, calibration by X-rite, photo printing by Bay Photo.
Shoes by Nike, watches by Tag Heuer, clothing by Ralph Lauren or Tommy Hilfiger or Donna Karan.
Y'all are worried about "Powered by SmugMug" in the footer? Go shoot more and stop worrying about the small stuff.
Interesting comments from an individual who does not have "Photo Sharing by SmugMug", "Powered by SmugMug", or even "SmugMug" displayed anywhere on his website.
We drive cars by Ford, Mercedes, BMW. Do you peel off their logos?
We shoot with Canon, Nikon, and other cameras - I'm willing to bet money that none of those complaining here take off the logos on their camera gear...
Tripods by RRS, meters by Sekonic, calibration by X-rite, photo printing by Bay Photo.
Shoes by Nike, watches by Tag Heuer, clothing by Ralph Lauren or Tommy Hilfiger or Donna Karan.
Y'all are worried about "Powered by SmugMug" in the footer? Go shoot more and stop worrying about the small stuff.
Nice try.
I'm sure Nike doesn't want the name of the Chinese factory on their shoes!
We drive cars by Ford, Mercedes, BMW. Do you peel off their logos?
We shoot with Canon, Nikon, and other cameras - I'm willing to bet money that none of those complaining here take off the logos on their camera gear...
Tripods by RRS, meters by Sekonic, calibration by X-rite, photo printing by Bay Photo.
Shoes by Nike, watches by Tag Heuer, clothing by Ralph Lauren or Tommy Hilfiger or Donna Karan.
Y'all are worried about "Powered by SmugMug" in the footer? Go shoot more and stop worrying about the small stuff.
You're not at all bothered by the fact that your site has a scrollbar on the homepage that does nothing but reveal "powered by smugmug?" The least they could do is incorporate their advertising properly. I'd shoot more but I'm afraid of the next artificial limit smugmug will impose on my site.
We have an engineer who intentionally changed the code. That code itself showed the specific intent - to force the footer link/ad by circumventing our CSS mods to force us to adhere to a rule that didn't really exist. That engineer was either working to order or was working without orders - either way, I no longer trust that engineer. And because I don't know which one it was, I can't trust any of them any more.
Hi beardedgit! I'm the "rogue engineer" who changed the footer code. It seems you've seen through my clever ruses and uncovered my crime! I have no choice now but to flee the country and seek asylum in Russia.
I kid, I kid. It wasn't actually an evil plot, and I have not gone off the reservation. I have, however, been avoiding this thread, because some people have resorted to insults and wild conspiracy theories to try to express their opinions, and nobody wants to read that stuff (or encourage it by replying).
Here's what happened: There had been a longstanding bug in the simple version of the footer (the one you see when you set "SmugMug Footer" to Off in your design settings) where logged out users would see the login link displayed too close to the footer text, so it looked like "Photo Sharing by SmugMug Login", which was ugly and weird.
I had been meaning to fix that for a while, and I finally got around to looking into it. The fix for that issue was easy -- just add a margin to the "Login" link to space it out a bit. But while I was in there, I noticed that the inline CSS that was intended to prevent the footer from being hidden was only applied to the footer's container, which made it easy to hide the link inside that container using some simple CSS. That was clearly also a bug, since that code had been intended to prevent hiding the footer. Since I was already in there, I went ahead and applied the anti-hiding CSS to the link as well.
I sent both changes to QA, our testers verified the fixes and signed off on them, and I pushed them live. This is our standard process.
Then some folks noticed that their footer-hiding CSS was no longer working and got very angry, and this thread was born, and people started coming up with really creative theories about how SmugMug is evil and how I'm a rogue engineer and how Baldy must be being coached by a team of high-powered corporate lawyers and other fun things.
The truth is SmugMug isn't evil, I'm not a rogue engineer, and there are no lawyers giving secret legal advice. There's just poor Bonocore and Baldy and others doing their best to listen to feedback and explain what happened, and a bunch of people refusing to believe them and being increasingly nasty about it.
...but that's exactly what I would say if I were a rogue engineer, so I guess we'll never know the real truth! Muahahaha!
Well, I'm glad to hear it. Not sure why this explanation wasn't given days ago.
And it does nothing to explain why bonocore is telling us we're not allowed to hide the footer, and never have been. And then Baldy comes here and acts like it's totally fine. When no one has ANY idea what's going on, you get weird theories. Bad communication = bad feelings, and SM's communication is so through the floor since the new rollout it's really hard to believe.
Nevertheless, thanks for posting. I would like to see Baldy or someone from SM just say once and for all what's it allowed. Having to look at our sites everyday to see what's happened next is really not acceptable.
Interesting comments from an individual who does not have "Photo Sharing by SmugMug", "Powered by SmugMug", or even "SmugMug" displayed anywhere on his website.
Have you taken a moment to look at Andy's site? I guess not... the footer is there.
Well, I'm glad to hear it. Not sure why this explanation wasn't given days ago.
It's mostly that I had plenty of other things to do (like shipping a new keyword parser and a new bulk collect feature in the Organizer), and wading into a thread that had already gone off the rails into trollville by the time I saw it didn't seem likely to be productive.
I really enjoy hearing direct feedback from you guys, but when it gets irrational and hurtful, I stay away for my own good. Nobody wants to have their feelings hurt, and nobody's forcing me to be here, so it's a pretty easy choice.
And it does nothing to explain why bonocore is telling us we're not allowed to hide the footer, and never have been. And then Baldy comes here and acts like it's totally fine.
It is our policy that we don't allow people to hide the footer. Bonocore is right. However, we have far better things to do than police the footer, so we don't. If you hide it, it's on you. I believe that's what Baldy was trying to get across. He used his words carefully because there are a lot of people in this thread who are eager to take things out of context or jump to conclusions.
In most cities in the US, it's illegal to drink an alcoholic beverage while walking down the street. But if the police spent all their time enforcing this trivial law, they'd never be able to devote their attention to things that actually matter. So as long as you put your booze in a paper bag so that it's not blindingly obvious that you're breaking the law, the cops are willing to ignore you. But if you walk up to a cop and ask him if you can swig a beer on a public street, he's going to say "No, of course not. What a dumb thing to ask."
...It is our policy that we don't allow people to hide the footer. Bonocore is right. However, we have far better things to do than police the footer, so we don't. If you hide it, it's on you. I believe that's what Baldy was trying to get across. He used his words carefully because there are a lot of people in this thread who are eager to take things out of context or jump to conclusions.
In most cities in the US, it's illegal to drink an alcoholic beverage while walking down the street. But if the police spent all their time enforcing this trivial law, they'd never be able to devote their attention to things that actually matter. So as long as you put your booze in a paper bag so that it's not blindingly obvious that you're breaking the law, the cops are willing to ignore you. But if you walk up to a cop and ask him if you can swig a beer on a public street, he's going to say "No, of course not. What a dumb thing to ask."
Capiche?
Yaypie, Thank you for taking time to write here and thank you for the technical explanation why things happened the way they happened.
Mr. McAskill, why do you have a policy to display SmugMug branding on pages of the service that is advertised as no ads, personal, etc? In case your employee is wrong about this policy or a change has been made that he is not aware of - please, clarify the policy about the company's branding on customers pages.
Yaypie, Thank you for taking time to write here and thank you for the technical explanation why things happened the way they happened.
Mr. McAskill, why do you have a policy to display SmugMug branding on pages of the service that is advertised as no ads, personal, etc? In case your employee is wrong about this policy or a change has been made that he is not aware of - please, clarify the policy about the company's branding on customers pages.
Michael,
Enough is enough. Did you not read Yaypie's response? How long have I been looking at ALL of your sites with no footers. Have I ever called you out on it? Have I ever written my friend Aaron Meyers and asked him to take down his customization hack on his website? No. I can only sit back and let you do your own thing for so long. Please, get the hint. We are well aware that you do it. What is the problem?
The reality is, you won't let this go. So now we will have to make a decision. And maybe you won't like it.
We are a service Michael. If you do not like what we provide, please, by all means build your own site or go to another service. You have that right as a consumer.
I sent both changes to QA, our testers verified the fixes and signed off on them, and I pushed them live. This is our standard process.
Did you and/or the QA team not notice how this caused the addition of a scroll bar on every page or did it not seem important? Now that you know it is an issue for most of us here is it going to be addressed or is what we have now the finished article?
Did you and/or the QA team not notice how this caused the addition of a scroll bar on every page or did it not seem important? Now that you know it is an issue for most of us here is it going to be addressed or is what we have now the finished article?
Thank you
I haven't seen this. Do you have an example? Always happy to look into problems, but it's hard without a link.
I haven't seen this. Do you have an example? Always happy to look into problems, but it's hard without a link.
Um, it happens on every SM site! The addition of the 'Powered by Smugmug' line adds a scroll bar on every page where there wasn't one before.
To pick one at random - http://www.moonriverphotography.com/ - everything is stationary except the 'Powered by Smugmug' line which you have to scroll down to see.
You were unaware of this? It didn't come up in QA?
Um, it happens on every SM site! The addition of the 'Powered by Smugmug' line adds a scroll bar on every page where there wasn't one before.
To pick one at random - http://www.moonriverphotography.com/ - everything is stationary except the 'Powered by Smugmug' line which you have to scroll down to see.
This is exactly what i was seeing on my site too. And since i wanted to get rid of the scrollbar (makes no sence with the fullscreen background slideshow) i had to add some CSS to hide the scrollbar and some more CSS to bring the footer back on screen.
This is exactly what i was seeing on my site too. And since i wanted to get rid of the scrollbar (makes no sence with the fullscreen background slideshow) i had to add some CSS to hide the scrollbar and some more CSS to bring the footer back on screen.
I appreciate the various official SM reps in here, but it still doesn't quite make sense. I'm happy enough with the way it works now, but I am not at all happy about the supposedly correct implementation (the scrollbar, that link / text being almost the first thing to load, it not being able to be integrated naturally with our other design elements, etc.).
My site is based on Sierra and the Fill Height option does control whether or not the footer/scrollbar shows on short screens. When I turn fill height off the scrollbar only appears when the page content is long enough to push the footer "below the fold", otherwise it renders right under the my content with no scrollbar. I hid theirs via CSS and added a similar feature/link to my header where it wasn't blindingly awful looking on page loads and didn't cause pages to have scroll bars.
Here are some examples from my site:
Note the scrollbar polluting my mimimalist homepage, and my light-grey "powered by smugmug" in the upper right corner (attribution, copyright, marketing, branding, whatever; I like you a lot, don't make me hate you).
Coincidentally, I also mention how I like Smugmug in this example of a short page which is forced to have a scrollbar.
And finally, here is how it looks for a second while pages are rendering... double "powered by" love, plus a confusing login link.
It works (badly) the same on IE9/10/11, Chrome and FF on Win7 and Win8 so I don't think we're seeing something that the engineers or QA folks would miss.
Interesting comments from an individual who does not have "Photo Sharing by SmugMug", "Powered by SmugMug", or even "SmugMug" displayed anywhere on his website.
Thanks for the details about the scrollbar issues in Fill Height mode, everyone. That's definitely a bug. I'll work on getting it fixed.
I just checked my site... i temporary removed the extra CSS code but it does not make any difference if FillHeight is on or off. Maybe a combination with other settings will cause that "issue".
BTW: This is not only related to the homepage... i have a custom page with a slideshow only here where you also get that scrollbar only because the footer is placed off screen. See screenshot where i have scrolled down to the end of the page (on the right, on the left you can see the top of the page). FillHeight is Off for that page.
Enough is enough. Did you not read Yaypie's response? How long have I been looking at ALL of your sites with no footers. Have I ever called you out on it? Have I ever written my friend Aaron Meyers and asked him to take down his customization hack on his website? No. I can only sit back and let you do your own thing for so long. Please, get the hint. We are well aware that you do it. What is the problem?
The reality is, you won't let this go. So now we will have to make a decision. And maybe you won't like it.
We are a service Michael. If you do not like what we provide, please, by all means build your own site or go to another service. You have that right as a consumer.
Michael,
You are absolutely correct- you are a service and I am a customer. As a customer, all I wanted is for you, Michael, is to stop making me feel like a criminal, to stop telling me that a branding cannot be removed which directly contradicts with one of the major advertised features of your service. But instead, the company chose bullying tactic: holding everyone in suspended mode, keep advertising "no ads and personal site", keep telling people that SM's brand hiding is against some rules, and, at the same time, indulgently letting us "do our own thing" as you said above. Combine all that with the fact that you physically hold a finger on the trigger that can change the face of our sites at will - this is a typical power position, perhaps assuming that no one would even think to stand up for him/herself against a big corporation? It is you who did not want to let this go.
Now you are presenting me with a prospect of some mysterious decision that I might not like. It sounds like a threat. I am sure many people now are actually panicking about their footers. Even the tone and content of the posts seem to change- no more dissatisfaction about misalignment of services provided with services advertised, no more demands for answers... don't piss off the GODS... All that because one customer wants to get exactly what he bought from you? You should be ashamed of yourself. At least for the tone of your reply and for the implied threat - you should be.
As for the decision - you had to make it sooner or later, I believe. What decisions you make - will, actually, define you as a company.
So you get the scrollbar on "short" pages (e.g. http://phaserbeam.smugmug.com/date) even when the Fill Height is "off"? Here's mine without Fill Height, you can see the footer slides up under my content and no scrollbar shows...
I just checked my site... i temporary removed the extra CSS code but it does not make any difference if FillHeight is on or off. Maybe a combination with other settings will cause that "issue".
BTW: This is not only related to the homepage... i have a custom page with a slideshow only here where you also get that scrollbar only because the footer is placed off screen. See screenshot where i have scrolled down to the end of the page (on the right, on the left you can see the top of the page)
Comments
I don't mean to imply that the opinions voiced were doing so pointlessly. Only that the tone and persistent negativity wasn't constructive. I also don't feel that the emotional response was productive. True, it appears to have worked. However, the situation isn't finalized so therefore has yet to reach a conclusion. Basically, we've been provided a way to keep the peace until the situation could be better examined and the course of action determined by SmugMug. Honestly, the same resolution could've been achieved by the length of the thread without us all freaking out so hardcore. I'm guilty too despite my initial comment being more neutral in nature.
Providing the suggests that would work best for you isn't complaining. I didn't single out anyone in my post. Only was hoping there would be less arguing, blaming and negativity and instead more working together on a mutually beneficial resolution for us all, by us all.
As for the code being intentional (or not) and Baldy's awareness (or lack thereof) - we don't have true proof of either and what would it matter? We may pay for SmugMug, but we don't own it. It's technically their code. However, I didn't agree with the way it was so suddenly done under the radar considering the layout and claims of individuality on the homepage for new Smuggers. That issue definitely needs to be addressed to not only prevent future confusion, but also to prevent SmugMug from future legal issues. Regardless, the true issue with that code was the timing and the way it was implemented. Hopefully, transparency will return to Smugland after this and all will be sunshine and rainbows.
SmugMug setup & customization services. Contact me!
Proud & helpful Smugger since 2009. Please hire me for Support Hero!!
I first contacted Jill V. in April 2011 & I even wrote a poem.
I agree we had the right to voice our opinions. However, many opinions were evolving additionally negative and repetitive despite SmugMug altering the wording per requests and making obvious effort to appease the many voices in this thread. I agree it is business and both sides must do what is best for them. SmugMug is also ran by humans. Mistakes are always a possibility. I also agree with your comment that had they wanted to, the branding could've been more prominent. However, the prominence has rarely changed over the years so it's not really an issue. It's just how suddenly the code was 'broken' and branding 'forced' upon everyone behind the scenes despite bigger bugs needing to be squashed.
Please don't assume that I am thankful for the branding or don't realize the expense of my Smugsite or relish feeling violated. I definitely feel that those of us who pay for the higher pro accounts, should be provided with better options and I suggested my thoughts in the post that warranted your response.
If the issue if legality has such power, than should we not also worry? How many services provided unlimited storage? I personally would prefer to NOT see SmugMug be involved in any legal dispute over the lack of clarification via terms and services displayed on their website. However, I do understand the potential for such reaction exists and am hopeful they will promptly find a resolution to ensure this doesn't happen.
I'm glad you agree with my constructive ideas and am hopeful such ideas will be considered and implemented in a way be best for all sides.
SmugMug setup & customization services. Contact me!
Proud & helpful Smugger since 2009. Please hire me for Support Hero!!
I first contacted Jill V. in April 2011 & I even wrote a poem.
Please don't cry!
SmugMug setup & customization services. Contact me!
Proud & helpful Smugger since 2009. Please hire me for Support Hero!!
I first contacted Jill V. in April 2011 & I even wrote a poem.
Yes, it is.
You have repeatedly called their actions illegal. That's different from "doing something I don't like".
If you feel so strongly it is illegal, just follow the appropriate path to get it resolved in the courts.
When I say I do not think you can compel action, I did not mean anything about you personally, or you abilities or resources. I believe the nature of the dispute just doesn't lend itself to litigation or complaints to the FTC. But by all means go for it, and let us know. I'd love to be proven wrong, and will apologize for being a doubter.
What would it matter? How's about Trust?
We have an engineer who intentionally changed the code. That code itself showed the specific intent - to force the footer link/ad by circumventing our CSS mods to force us to adhere to a rule that didn't really exist. That engineer was either working to order or was working without orders - either way, I no longer trust that engineer. And because I don't know which one it was, I can't trust any of them any more.
Nearly 2 weeks ago "Photo Sharing By SmugMug" appeared.
A few days later that was changed to "Powered by SmugMug". I'm happy with that.
But who knows what could be coded to display in the footer (or, indeed, anywhere on my site) next week? "Powered by Yahoo! YUI", perhaps? It's not so far from the truth. Or maybe it could be something more sinister. And I'd have no forewarning and no defence until it had happened. It's not as if it couldn't happen - SM's rogue engineer has already set the precedent. That, to me, is unacceptable.
We're told that we can't have open commenting because of a perceived security risk from "outside", yet I stand open and defenceless while a SM insider could decide to "enhance" my site with just about anything he/she wants.
Trust. It's at an all-time low right now. The right words from the right people could go a long way to restoring Trust, but the right people just don't appear to care, and don't seem to be able to find the right words.
We drive cars by Ford, Mercedes, BMW. Do you peel off their logos?
We shoot with Canon, Nikon, and other cameras - I'm willing to bet money that none of those complaining here take off the logos on their camera gear...
Tripods by RRS, meters by Sekonic, calibration by X-rite, photo printing by Bay Photo.
Shoes by Nike, watches by Tag Heuer, clothing by Ralph Lauren or Tommy Hilfiger or Donna Karan.
Y'all are worried about "Powered by SmugMug" in the footer? Go shoot more and stop worrying about the small stuff.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Interesting comments from an individual who does not have "Photo Sharing by SmugMug", "Powered by SmugMug", or even "SmugMug" displayed anywhere on his website.
www.sunglophoto.com
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Nice try.
I'm sure Nike doesn't want the name of the Chinese factory on their shoes!
Cheers,
You're not at all bothered by the fact that your site has a scrollbar on the homepage that does nothing but reveal "powered by smugmug?" The least they could do is incorporate their advertising properly. I'd shoot more but I'm afraid of the next artificial limit smugmug will impose on my site.
Dave
Hi beardedgit! I'm the "rogue engineer" who changed the footer code. It seems you've seen through my clever ruses and uncovered my crime! I have no choice now but to flee the country and seek asylum in Russia.
I kid, I kid. It wasn't actually an evil plot, and I have not gone off the reservation. I have, however, been avoiding this thread, because some people have resorted to insults and wild conspiracy theories to try to express their opinions, and nobody wants to read that stuff (or encourage it by replying).
Here's what happened: There had been a longstanding bug in the simple version of the footer (the one you see when you set "SmugMug Footer" to Off in your design settings) where logged out users would see the login link displayed too close to the footer text, so it looked like "Photo Sharing by SmugMug Login", which was ugly and weird.
I had been meaning to fix that for a while, and I finally got around to looking into it. The fix for that issue was easy -- just add a margin to the "Login" link to space it out a bit. But while I was in there, I noticed that the inline CSS that was intended to prevent the footer from being hidden was only applied to the footer's container, which made it easy to hide the link inside that container using some simple CSS. That was clearly also a bug, since that code had been intended to prevent hiding the footer. Since I was already in there, I went ahead and applied the anti-hiding CSS to the link as well.
I sent both changes to QA, our testers verified the fixes and signed off on them, and I pushed them live. This is our standard process.
Then some folks noticed that their footer-hiding CSS was no longer working and got very angry, and this thread was born, and people started coming up with really creative theories about how SmugMug is evil and how I'm a rogue engineer and how Baldy must be being coached by a team of high-powered corporate lawyers and other fun things.
The truth is SmugMug isn't evil, I'm not a rogue engineer, and there are no lawyers giving secret legal advice. There's just poor Bonocore and Baldy and others doing their best to listen to feedback and explain what happened, and a bunch of people refusing to believe them and being increasingly nasty about it.
...but that's exactly what I would say if I were a rogue engineer, so I guess we'll never know the real truth! Muahahaha!
And it does nothing to explain why bonocore is telling us we're not allowed to hide the footer, and never have been. And then Baldy comes here and acts like it's totally fine. When no one has ANY idea what's going on, you get weird theories. Bad communication = bad feelings, and SM's communication is so through the floor since the new rollout it's really hard to believe.
Nevertheless, thanks for posting. I would like to see Baldy or someone from SM just say once and for all what's it allowed. Having to look at our sites everyday to see what's happened next is really not acceptable.
Have you taken a moment to look at Andy's site? I guess not... the footer is there.
Interesting, I couldn't find it when I accessed the site he listed at the bottom of his post. Maybe I need to clean my glasses.
Edit: Wow, neat trick, there was no scroll bar or footer when I checked before...me thinks someone is pulling my leg.
www.sunglophoto.com
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
It's mostly that I had plenty of other things to do (like shipping a new keyword parser and a new bulk collect feature in the Organizer), and wading into a thread that had already gone off the rails into trollville by the time I saw it didn't seem likely to be productive.
I really enjoy hearing direct feedback from you guys, but when it gets irrational and hurtful, I stay away for my own good. Nobody wants to have their feelings hurt, and nobody's forcing me to be here, so it's a pretty easy choice.
It is our policy that we don't allow people to hide the footer. Bonocore is right. However, we have far better things to do than police the footer, so we don't. If you hide it, it's on you. I believe that's what Baldy was trying to get across. He used his words carefully because there are a lot of people in this thread who are eager to take things out of context or jump to conclusions.
In most cities in the US, it's illegal to drink an alcoholic beverage while walking down the street. But if the police spent all their time enforcing this trivial law, they'd never be able to devote their attention to things that actually matter. So as long as you put your booze in a paper bag so that it's not blindingly obvious that you're breaking the law, the cops are willing to ignore you. But if you walk up to a cop and ask him if you can swig a beer on a public street, he's going to say "No, of course not. What a dumb thing to ask."
Capiche?
Yaypie, Thank you for taking time to write here and thank you for the technical explanation why things happened the way they happened.
Mr. McAskill, why do you have a policy to display SmugMug branding on pages of the service that is advertised as no ads, personal, etc? In case your employee is wrong about this policy or a change has been made that he is not aware of - please, clarify the policy about the company's branding on customers pages.
Michael,
Enough is enough. Did you not read Yaypie's response? How long have I been looking at ALL of your sites with no footers. Have I ever called you out on it? Have I ever written my friend Aaron Meyers and asked him to take down his customization hack on his website? No. I can only sit back and let you do your own thing for so long. Please, get the hint. We are well aware that you do it. What is the problem?
The reality is, you won't let this go. So now we will have to make a decision. And maybe you won't like it.
We are a service Michael. If you do not like what we provide, please, by all means build your own site or go to another service. You have that right as a consumer.
Facebook
Google+
Twitter
Photo Blog
Did you and/or the QA team not notice how this caused the addition of a scroll bar on every page or did it not seem important? Now that you know it is an issue for most of us here is it going to be addressed or is what we have now the finished article?
Thank you
I haven't seen this. Do you have an example? Always happy to look into problems, but it's hard without a link.
Um, it happens on every SM site! The addition of the 'Powered by Smugmug' line adds a scroll bar on every page where there wasn't one before.
To pick one at random - http://www.moonriverphotography.com/ - everything is stationary except the 'Powered by Smugmug' line which you have to scroll down to see.
You were unaware of this? It didn't come up in QA?
This is exactly what i was seeing on my site too. And since i wanted to get rid of the scrollbar (makes no sence with the fullscreen background slideshow) i had to add some CSS to hide the scrollbar and some more CSS to bring the footer back on screen.
I wish you worked for Smugmug!
Makes no difference on mine.
My site is based on Sierra and the Fill Height option does control whether or not the footer/scrollbar shows on short screens. When I turn fill height off the scrollbar only appears when the page content is long enough to push the footer "below the fold", otherwise it renders right under the my content with no scrollbar. I hid theirs via CSS and added a similar feature/link to my header where it wasn't blindingly awful looking on page loads and didn't cause pages to have scroll bars.
Here are some examples from my site:
Note the scrollbar polluting my mimimalist homepage, and my light-grey "powered by smugmug" in the upper right corner (attribution, copyright, marketing, branding, whatever; I like you a lot, don't make me hate you).
Coincidentally, I also mention how I like Smugmug in this example of a short page which is forced to have a scrollbar.
And finally, here is how it looks for a second while pages are rendering... double "powered by" love, plus a confusing login link.
It works (badly) the same on IE9/10/11, Chrome and FF on Win7 and Win8 so I don't think we're seeing something that the engineers or QA folks would miss.
Andy
Um, it's on there and always has been....
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
I just checked my site... i temporary removed the extra CSS code but it does not make any difference if FillHeight is on or off. Maybe a combination with other settings will cause that "issue".
BTW: This is not only related to the homepage... i have a custom page with a slideshow only here where you also get that scrollbar only because the footer is placed off screen. See screenshot where i have scrolled down to the end of the page (on the right, on the left you can see the top of the page). FillHeight is Off for that page.
Michael,
You are absolutely correct- you are a service and I am a customer. As a customer, all I wanted is for you, Michael, is to stop making me feel like a criminal, to stop telling me that a branding cannot be removed which directly contradicts with one of the major advertised features of your service. But instead, the company chose bullying tactic: holding everyone in suspended mode, keep advertising "no ads and personal site", keep telling people that SM's brand hiding is against some rules, and, at the same time, indulgently letting us "do our own thing" as you said above. Combine all that with the fact that you physically hold a finger on the trigger that can change the face of our sites at will - this is a typical power position, perhaps assuming that no one would even think to stand up for him/herself against a big corporation? It is you who did not want to let this go.
Now you are presenting me with a prospect of some mysterious decision that I might not like. It sounds like a threat. I am sure many people now are actually panicking about their footers. Even the tone and content of the posts seem to change- no more dissatisfaction about misalignment of services provided with services advertised, no more demands for answers... don't piss off the GODS... All that because one customer wants to get exactly what he bought from you? You should be ashamed of yourself. At least for the tone of your reply and for the implied threat - you should be.
As for the decision - you had to make it sooner or later, I believe. What decisions you make - will, actually, define you as a company.
Andy