SmugMug loses it's BBS embedding links?

[elagache]

Dear WeatherCat Shutterbugs,

I'm busily writing up the latest saga on my trusty wagon and ran into a rather frustrating snag.  SmugMug has changed the way they allow photos to be shared and it definitely isn't an improvement.  The process is slower and it appears to completely eliminate the code so that you could display a good sized picture on your posting, but it would also automatically link to the associated gallery so that  people who were curious could get a larger version of the photo.

This is especially useful when it comes to my wagon, because sometimes people really need to check out some detail of a part installation.  In general though, it is really nice to be able to look at a great photo at a higher resolution that would display nicely on a forum post.

Has anybody figured out a way around this mess?  If you have SmugMug account and also want this feature back, by all means holler! 

Cheers, Edouard

P.S. It appears you can manually create your own BBS code like what SmugMug was doing and it still works.  For example, I found that this code does work by mimicking an example of a previous code.  Here is what it looks like

Code: [Select]

[url=https://"URL of the SmugMug gallery you want to highlight"/"Picture name (from next section)"/A][img]"Picture from new SmugMug get a link feature"[/img][/url]
Here is a real example:

Code: [Select]

[url=https://canebas.smugmug.com/Biquette/Drive-Train-makeover/Biquettes-TA-Performance/n-BhqLJk/i-66gqDQp/A][img]https://canebas.smugmug.com/photos/i-66gqDQp/0/XL/i-66gqDQp-XL.jpg[/img][/url]
Note that the section that goes at the very end of the gallery listing is the same hashed (gibberish) collection of numbers and letters that is used to describe the photo minus the photo size indication.

When entered into a forum post without escaping the codes, it looks and does this:



However, this is going to be a real pain to code by hand all the time . . . . 

[Bull Winkus]

OK, let me try it.

1st Image: Here's a copy/paste of the URL to the original size image. In preview of this post it looks full size to me. I think you're talking about posting a normal web page sized image with an ability for the viewer to click on it and go to full size. So, I'll try that in my second image.

2nd Image: Tried using the share button, which then gives the opportunity to select the size. Same result.

The last, which is just a link was obtained by using the checkbox for HTML after using the Share button.

Sorry, Edouard. Couldn't make it happen. You certainly appear to be correct!

 





http://<a href="https://bullwinkus.smugmug.com/Nature/Wildlife-from-iPhone/i-gvMgsZ7/A"><img src="https://bullwinkus.smugmug.com/Nature/Wildlife-from-iPhone/i-gvMgsZ7/0/M/IMG_0767-M.jpg" alt=""></a>

[xairbusdriver]

I've had great success using Photobucket for storing personal stuff. I have 10 plus pages of images and am still under 4% of the free space they gave me. Sharing stuff couldn't be simpler, although it's probably similar to SmugMug; click the 'share' icon on every image thumbnail and you're offered four different copy and paste texts; Direct (which I use here), Email & IM (which I assume delivers a smaller image), HTML (for inserting into an html file - DUH!), and IMG (which usually works in forums).

I've often wondered after joining this forum, how it is paid for. Ain't no free lunch, ya know... I assume that Stu covers all the server costs. I help Admin another Mac Help forum and we have a very old version of the php software and somewhat limited server space, all grand-fathered in to our use. Updating would cost quite a bit more and there is no way to run the updated and old versions at the same time. We just take turns paying the annual 'dues' of less than $30. But we do request that people either edit the size of their images before uploading to 'our' server OR link to the size-edited images from places like SmugMug or PhotoBucket. The latter is best for the forum, since we don't use any server space!

The reason for size-editing is to prevent images from forcing horizontal scrolling. With our very old software (at the other forum), a wide image causes the whole page to widen to include the width of the image. This means that any text in the post may be well off-screen! Fortunately, the software here forces only the image to have the much hated horizontal scrolling!

Still, uploaded images use up server space. We've been fortunate on the other forum to have members help keep costs to zero by either size-editing and linking!

Just wondering how server costs are controlled or covered here. It is still slightly irritating to have to scroll to see what's on the right-hand side of an image... I must be the only person still using a less than monitor sized window for 99% of my computer use.

[Steve]

And it changed even more overnight! I sent the following to the Heroes:

What the Hell happened to the sharing button overnight!?!? For years I've used the wonderful, easy to use "get a link" button to get links to post on forums. Overnight it changed to some horrible shadow of its former self! You used to be able to right/left tab to get the next/previous image if getting several links. You didn't used to have to pull down a menu to get to the various sizes. You didn't used to have to select HTML each time you used the share button. You used to simply click the copy button to copy the link to the clipboard. How am I supposed to command-C on an iPad??? You used to be able to select an image in sharing and have the parent gallery included in the HTML code.

All of this is gone, and we're left with a horrible user interface that takes more mouse-clicks, more time, and is less user friendly. Please add the option to change it back!

[xairbusdriver]

Perhaps if you told them exactly how you feel, they might listen. OTOH, how much does SmugMug cost? If it's free, it probably doesn't come with a "Listen to the customer" button. OTOH, if it is a paid service, perhaps hey need to be reminded that there are alternatives (competitors)... 

[Bull Winkus]

It is a paid service, but the design philosophy is skewed toward professional photographers offering up merchandise in a storefront. They seem to have forgotten about the casual user who just wants to be able to share photos at various places on the Internet at original resolution.

 

[Steve]

Yep, SmugMug is a paid service. I have been a "Power" level member for eleven years. The cost for me is $5/month for tools that are much more powerful than any free service, and reliability. (I have also had accounts at several photos services who are defunct - some of which were paid.) I have been exceedingly happy with them until some recent changes, and have given a lot of referrals (including a couple of folks here.) At the time, PBase was the top paid Pro site, and SmugMug the top paid serious amateur photographer site with a lot of crossover.

Here's the less than helpful reply I got from the SmugMug Heroes:

Thanks for contacting SmugMug support

We did update the share panel, and some of the functionality has changed. On your iPad, if you highlight the link, then press and hold, you?ll be able to copy the link, then use the same method (press and hold) when pasting the link.

We understand that the updated tool will change your workflow. We invite you to leave any suggestions you have for the new tool here for others to vote on: http://feedback.smugmug.com/forums/17723-smugmug
If there?s anything else we can help you with, just let us know!

I did, and posted my original question, still awaiting approval.

[Bull Winkus]

I've been using them for about 2 or 3 years now. All I do is put images up for an easy link-to at my chosen resolution. But, I've always just use Copy Image Address by right clicking on the image after selecting the size I want. Didn't know there was an easier or better way. 

Because I don't use it often, my frustration is having to relearn the interface every time they change it. 

 

[xairbusdriver]

Speaking of "interface", press and hold on a link or word on an iDevice is the same as command-c on a desktop machine. I use that a lot when opening page in a new tab in iOS Safari. It's very similar to a control (right) click which brings up a contextual menu, except the usual choices are much more limited; copy or open/open in a new tab/add to reading list/call Apple to complain/etc.

Likewise, press and hold in a text-box, in an iDevice, is the same as command-v on a desktop machine Never tried a press and hold to do the command-x function, but I often accidentally select a word by pressing on it, even very briefly and certainly not holding my "cursor" on it.

While many complain about being unable to remember all the possible keyboard shortcuts on a desktop machine, it certainly highlights the limits of "touch" systems where there are so many things we cannot do! It is amazing what simply adding the option key can do in so many apps! But I really like the shift-control-option-command + another key for real power-user bragging rights!

[elagache]

Dear Steve and WeatherCat shutterbugs,

And it changed even more overnight! I sent the following to the Heroes:

Thanks for joining the chorus.  I certainly agree with you, the new user interface is very clumsy.  I can see that they needed to add some additional functionality to deal with plague (err, I mean growing bounty ) of social media sites, but this wasn't well thought out.

I've got a rather long tale to tell with oodles of pictures.  I hope they don't break my hand-coding!

Cheers, Edouard