09-12-2007, 07:00 PM
|
|
Executive Editor
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 29,160
|
|
If You're a Smugmug User, Read This
If you're a Smugmug user (and if you're not, you really should check it out, they even have a Flickr migration discount), I'd like your input on a feature I've proposed in the Dgrin forums. I've also added a poll to my post in that forum, so please vote. Below is what I proposed. I'd be interested in hearing from Digital Media Thoughts readers who are aware of other photo sharing services that have this feature I'm looking for (though it would take a lot for me to leave Smugmug).
********
I'd like to see more granularity in the Smugmug approach to album privacy and security. Right now Smugmug is great for two things: completely public albums where any random user can see every picture, or completely secure albums where only someone with the password can see any of the images. The current method is too binary (secure or not secure) and is fraught with difficulties and frustrations for me as a Smugmug user.
So I have one specific feature request: I want to have the ability to flag certain photos within a gallery as private, using an easy and fast batch-mode "click to make private" function. The rationale here is that if there are pictures as part of a gallery that I'd like only friends/family to see (usually the ones where people are acting goofy or slightly embarrassing), I don't want random people to be able to see those images - but I don't mind them looking through all of the other images in the gallery. If friends and family come visit the gallery and enter the password, it "unlocks" all the other images for them, so they can see and order every photo. It's the best of both worlds!
SmugIslands is a great step forward for those people who are concerned about hiding their images from search engines, but SmugIslands doesn't deal with the human factor and all of the issues I raised. I don't mind my images being discovered by Google and other search engines, but I'd love to have the ability to have a single album that would contain all of the photos I want friends and family to see, yet still have the more generic, non-personal photos I don't mind the world seeing. The only workaround right now is to have two galleries, one public and one hidden, then delete the personal photos from the public gallery. That's an ugly hack and wastes Smugmug storage space and resources.
********
|
| |
|
|
|
09-12-2007, 10:53 PM
|
|
Thinker
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 337
|
|
Okay, I voted for your idea, but suggested a different way of implementing it (under the name Wildearth). BTW, thanks for taking a look at my wildlife photos last week. I appreciate the feedback. (You should definitely do Africa sometime!!!) 
|
| |
|
|
|
09-12-2007, 11:04 PM
|
|
Executive Editor
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 29,160
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Crocuta
Okay, I voted for your idea, but suggested a different way of implementing it
|
Great, thanks! Anything to get Smugmug moving toward SOME sort of solution on this subject. ;-)
Granted, I've been waiting over a year for them to upgrade the user home page to show bigger image thumbnails and more text and they say it's "in progress". :?
|
| |
|
|
|
09-13-2007, 12:23 AM
|
|
Contributing Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,291
|
|
As a Smugmug user I'd like to see that also. For example. A few months back I had a cousin in town with her daughter for my sisters wedding. We went to the zoo the morning of and I took a bunch of great pictures. The cousin preferred that I not post pictures of her daughter on-line in a public area, so I ended up making the whole set private rather than just those with them in it. I'd certainly like more granularity.
|
| |
|
|
|
09-13-2007, 02:28 PM
|
|
Executive Editor
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 29,160
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chris Gohlke
The cousin preferred that I not post pictures of her daughter on-line in a public area, so I ended up making the whole set private rather than just those with them in it. I'd certainly like more granularity.
|
Well, it would be a huge help if you could register in the Dgrin forum and post a comment supporting the idea - so far on the poll 7 out of 13 people have voted that Smugmug's current setup is great, so it seems like a good portion of people prefer the binary approach.
|
| |
|
|
|
09-13-2007, 05:59 PM
|
|
Neophyte
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 7
|
|
I've been a Smugmug user for a couple of years and agree with your post. I think it could be accomplished by password protecting an image (single or batch) or by nesting galleries, which another user mentioned. Nesting galleries could not only accomplish this task, but possibly allow users to specify that a photo lives in two or more galleries. Unless I'm mistaken, the only way to show the same photo in multiple galleries right now is to upload it to each individual gallery. It's a bit off topic, but if someone knows of another way, please let me know.
http://brandonllewis.smugmug.com
|
| |
|
|
|
09-13-2007, 07:30 PM
|
|
Oracle
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 864
|
|
Anyone have a specfic list of why I would want to jump ship from Flickr. I am talking concrete things no esoteric because Yahoo... blah blah blah.....
|
| |
|
|
|
09-14-2007, 04:41 PM
|
|
Executive Editor
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 29,160
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by entropy1980
Anyone have a specfic list of why I would want to jump ship from Flickr.
|
I think the biggest difference between Flickr and Smugmug is that Flickr is much more about community - they have so many users, and so many people commenting, that it's a good place to post your photos and get comments on them. But because Flickr accounts are free, there's a lot of junk (porn, spam, etc.) and much of Flickr's community aren't photographers. Don't get me wrong, I've seen some amazing work on Flickr and there are a LOT of very talented people on Flickr...but Smugmug is a very different beast because there are no free accounts.
Everyone on Smugmug is there because they're willing to pay for a service to post and share their pictures - that right there it attracts a very different type of person. Not "better", just different. Smugmug is more about being able to control your pictures, the way they're shared, they way they're printed, etc. Smugmug is more...intimate somehow than Flickr. I personally really enjoy the customization abilities of Smugmug - I couldn't get my photo gallery to look like my blog if it was up on Flickr.
Basically, just pick whatever works best for your needs. :-)
|
| |
|
|
|
09-14-2007, 11:21 PM
|
|
Executive Editor
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 29,160
|
|
Oh, another thing I like about Smugmug: they really back up your files, whereas I think Flickr is a "best effort" thing, isn't it? I also like that Smugmug allows users to go through my photos using keyboard shortcuts. Seems minor, but it's really great compared to the never-ending CLICK CLICK CLICK of other sites.
|
| |
|
|
|
03-19-2008, 09:57 PM
|
|
Neophyte
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1
|
|
ITCP Data
I am happy with Smug Mug except-
it doesn't display ITCP Data on page. If Smug Mug(SM) accepts ITCP files and when someone purchases the image the data is there, then why not show it on the screen? We are using SM for scientific purposes so location, species, and other descriptions are very important. I have searched many photohosting sites and SM has all of the features except this. I am trying to get others out there to request the ITCP files be shown so if you have a free moment let them know on http://www.dgrin.com/forumdisplay.php?f=12
Also more keyword availabilty. What I have found is Smug Mug only uses the first 10 keywords for a search. Why not more, especially if people are using for stock?
Thanks and the new site will be up soon!
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
