|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/29/2008 07:45:25 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by rossbilly:
...and I can no longer recommend them to others in good conscience - too many other choices out there. |
That's the kind of blanket statement that gets people's dander up. What's right for you may very well not be right for me. You should recommend (or not) based on the needs of the person you are recommending to.
Originally posted by rossbilly:
Should they make improvements that actually help MY sales & profits before my subscription ends in October (instead of only helping their bottom line), I'll happily reconsider. |
So they charge 15% of your markup... what do you think is fair? If you host photos there, and then fulfill orders yourself, how does SM stay in business? Would you rather your customers have to look at ads that support SM? I think not. I'm not judging whether 15% is fair or competitive, the marketplace will do that.
|
Exactly my point(s). You see, i AM part of 'the market'. Have you forgotten that I am a customer as well? People can 'get their dander up' all they want, but the smart choice would be to carefully consider ALL choices. I suppose you'd rather I not share my dissatisfactions? How does that help people? Hell, I even gave links to (not only) their TOS, but even their own support forums - what more do you WANT??? Is that not being more than fair? Am I to simply blow sunshine up people's ass, just so I can get another year free, when in reality I'm not satisfied myself? Yeah, GREAT idea!
Post just a few choice concerns about 'the golden child' (SmugMug) around here, and suddenly I'm summarily chastised by SOME of you? Not cool. I gave both positive AND negative takes on the company... do with it what you will, but there's no need to jump my ass just because I wanted to let others know the FULL story.
Other than the (somewhat ambiguous) answer concerning nudity on SM, I have yet to see points that disprove what I've already stated here. Stop screaming about what they CAN do (which I already CLEARLY agreed with) and address the issues at hand, please. |
|
|
|
01/29/2008 08:05:54 PM · #27 |
It seems the issue at hand is the allegation that "private" galleries on Smugmug are not functioning as the photographer intended.
In my case, that's simply not true. Like dwterry, I expect that the average Internet user cannot navigate to a private gallery without me giving them a URL. Also like dwterry, I don't want customers to have to remember a password.
I think Smugmug's solution to the privacy/security balance is just fine. If some hacker wants to try to find my Auntie opening up her Christmas presents, I barely care. I just don't want to send clients to the site to look at proofs and have them easily see those family snapshots, too.
The rest of it - questions about Smugmug's nudity policy, the commission structure, whatever else, seems to be off-topic blather to justify an opinion that Smugmug sucks. None of these items have anything to do with the private vs. password protected gallery question posed by the OP. |
|
|
|
01/29/2008 08:10:45 PM · #28 |
| DPC doesn't have privacy either, even in the workshop folders. Nearly every photo in my workshop has at least a few views even if they aren't posted. With the numbered system of the images as they upload it is easy enough to see into what ever is posted to the site unless it is a challenge entry. Makes it annoying for testing or holding images on site for challenges. |
|
|
|
01/29/2008 10:41:11 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by jdannels:
DPC doesn't have privacy either, even in the workshop folders. Nearly every photo in my workshop has at least a few views even if they aren't posted. With the numbered system of the images as they upload it is easy enough to see into what ever is posted to the site unless it is a challenge entry. Makes it annoying for testing or holding images on site for challenges. |
No, but DPC doesn't guarantee privacy either, whereas Smugmug at least implies it. I have a smugmug account where events are marked private & password protected because most of them are images of small children. I find it disturbing that there are methods for these images to end up on someone's hard drive, even if it may be unlikely to happen. I've guaranteed my clients privacy, based on what I thought I was reading on Smugmug, but perhaps I've been mistaken.
|
|
|
|
01/29/2008 10:50:44 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by Bebe:
I have a smugmug account where events are marked private & password protected because most of them are images of small children. |
Sounds to me like you're protected. The password prevents anyone from getting into your album.
Now, if you never post your images on external web sites (linking back to your SM images), then you can also turn External Linking off. Having done so, you are completely protected from anyone accessing your images.
|
|
|
|
01/29/2008 11:58:02 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by rossbilly:
...Stop screaming about what they CAN do (which I already CLEARLY agreed with) and address the issues at hand, please. |
No one is screaming here but you, dude. I see a *lot* of objective, intelligent discussion of both the positives and negatives of SM by others here, whereas you seem bent on flying the negativity flag from the highest pole. |
|
|
|
01/30/2008 12:11:54 AM · #32 |
I just have one question:
Am I skeptical that the complaint that initiated this thread came from a blog sponsored by Google, posted by a Google employee and that Google just so happens to have a competing photo hosting business?
Message edited by author 2008-01-30 00:12:51. |
|
|
|
01/30/2008 12:55:32 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by L2:
I expect that the average Internet user cannot navigate to a private gallery without me giving them a URL. |
Okay, but here's my question: how would you feel if you put up a photo you wanted to restrict to a few people, but someone downloaded every SmugMug photo using serial URLs, and then posted them somewhere? The person won't know who owns the photo, but if your face (or body) is in it, you're still now on display. And you presumably had some reason to keep random people from seeing it, right?
Now, I have no problem with how SM works, as long as there's a little link like "What's this mean" next to the various settings.
Anyway, interesting discussion. And thanks, Billy and Skip, for the other options. I do appreciate it, even though it took me several hours to come back. :)
|
|
|
|
01/30/2008 12:58:13 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by rossbilly:
...Stop screaming about what they CAN do (which I already CLEARLY agreed with) and address the issues at hand, please. |
No one is screaming here but you, dude. I see a *lot* of objective, intelligent discussion of both the positives and negatives of SM by others here, whereas you seem bent on flying the negativity flag from the highest pole. |
If the things I've stated are false, then delete them. I read Les' post, followed his link, returned to respond for others to read, and was immediately jumped on for my opinion.
Yes, I imagine my temper could have been curbed... but does anyone have to wonder about my opinion of them? :D However, I provide several positive statements along with my complaints.
Now, I'd still like to see someone disprove the points I've made. Seriously; if their are improvements to their services which I've missed, it would be a lot easier to stay with SM. You guys seem to think I somehow LIKE the idea of leaving. On the contrary - I'd rather not have to learn an entirely new site, move hundreds of images, and deal with a bunch of people whose links no longer work.
Since some people obviously can't see that my statements ARE related to smugmug issues: I hereby concur that the language used by SmugMug's hosting services seem at best ambiguous (misleading?), when they use the term "private" on a gallery. There... on topic! :D
|
|
|
|
01/30/2008 01:52:54 AM · #35 |
I'm another that happily pays the yearly fee and the 15% on each order. I feel I'm getting full value from their programmers, adding new features that I want with regularity. Couldn't afford that on my own! Volume, well, 25-40 orders a month from August on. I simply don't want to do my own fulfillment and especially collecting sales tax in California. Still waiting for coupons and packages, which I know they want to offer too.
For privacy, I keep external links turned off.
The ability to do customization without learning CSS, html, Javascript is cool too--I'm geeky but no coder. Last night I tweaked my site:
-changed the rollover border color (CSS)
-removed the word "Galleries" from the headers (CSS)
-removed the subcategory name once they're IN it, it shows already in
the nav (CSS) though that's not right-yet.
-made the filenames appear under each photo in the smugmug style
(thumbs with med or large image to right (Javascript)
-customized the right click protection text to say "property of Lynne
Glazer Imagery, all rights reserved etc. (Java, I think)
cut and paste, all, from their examples. It wouldn't have been over
10 minutes total except that I couldn't decide on a rollover color.
There's a section for each thing in the control panel/customization
section: header, footer, CSS, Javascript, etc. The FAQ tells you
exactly where to paste the code. I comment each line */ like this so
I have a clue what I was doing in that section /*. There's a script
for Firefox called smugmanager which puts a ton of control at your
fingertips.
Horses for courses, indeed. Exposure Manager is a worthwhile alternative. Yeah, Smugmug evolved from a photo sharing site to one offering more pro bennies all the time, but I'm betting on them for the long range. Check out their companion forum dgrin.com for the community feel there, too.
|
|
|
|
01/30/2008 08:25:57 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
Originally posted by L2:
I expect that the average Internet user cannot navigate to a private gallery without me giving them a URL. |
Okay, but here's my question: how would you feel if you put up a photo you wanted to restrict to a few people, but someone downloaded every SmugMug photo using serial URLs, and then posted them somewhere? The person won't know who owns the photo, but if your face (or body) is in it, you're still now on display. And you presumably had some reason to keep random people from seeing it, right?
Now, I have no problem with how SM works, as long as there's a little link like "What's this mean" next to the various settings... |
Levy Jeffrey (see, I'm trying!), I can see your point about the hacker downloading random serial URL's; however, I just really don't care. The basic reason for this is that a) I just don't have/keep any real embarassing pictures to put up on the internet b) if someone got them and displayed them, my world would not end. I'd simply file an infringement report like I would for any other stolen photo and get the display taken down. I read Smugmug's explanations about SmugIslands and Google, etc. and I understood that private meant no one could accidentally stumble on it but that it was easily shared if you gave out the URL, and I previously understood that to be "secure" anything had to be behind password protection. A hacker proving a point is not "accidentaly stumbling" across anything, therefore, I don't feel duped.
In my mind, Smugmug did a good job explaining this privacy vs. security before that blog post, and has done an excellent job responding both back on that blog post and here at DPC. What more can I ask for from them? For those that didn't understand, well, now they do, and that's good!
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/22/2025 03:42:08 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/22/2025 03:42:08 AM EDT.
|
