Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I would like to see the greyed-out tags a little darker so they are easier to read. I can only make them clear to me by tipping my laptop back at an angle to darken them. Rather awkward. I'd also like to see the caption and location fields more user-friendly in terms of being larger and with darker print.

 

Paulette

The text size you see depends on the screen resolution. You can make the text larger (and the thumbnails correspondingly get smaller) on a Mac by hitting cmd+ and smaller by hitting cmd-

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding not being able to delete the date is a problem for archive material where the date is not always known.  I would rather have the option of 'no date' rather than an incorrect one.

 

John

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to see the greyed-out tags a little darker so they are easier to read. I can only make them clear to me by tipping my laptop back at an angle to darken them. Rather awkward. I'd also like to see the caption and location fields more user-friendly in terms of being larger and with darker print.

 

Paulette

 

Make those a simple box please with enough room to show all text plus some extra space. With a counter that shows the overflow. So we can edit out unwanted words or characters.

Now the location simply truncates the text found by Google. In fact it left out the country on one occasion. This was when I had pointed out the exact location on the map.

On another location it had chosen a totally different place on earth on leaving the input line. I do use a pen though. However it will be worse with a finger.

 

I wish I had GPS.

 

wim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding not being able to delete the date is a problem for archive material where the date is not always known.  I would rather have the option of 'no date' rather than an incorrect one.

 

John

 

Yes the date is a problem. I started just putting in the year a while back as that was allowed under the old system and now all those images default to Jan 1 of that year it seems. This is really silly for subjects where the season is evident in the image - spring flowers on January 1st in the northern hemisphere for example. And it is not possible to locate these images by searching. Bugs bugs bugs galore.

Edited by MDM
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I would like to see the greyed-out tags a little darker so they are easier to read. I can only make them clear to me by tipping my laptop back at an angle to darken them. Rather awkward. I'd also like to see the caption and location fields more user-friendly in terms of being larger and with darker print.

 

Paulette

The text size you see depends on the screen resolution. You can make the text larger (and the thumbnails correspondingly get smaller) on a Mac by hitting cmd+ and smaller by hitting cmd-

 

 

What fun. I like it. It worked on the location field but I couldn't get it to do anything on the caption field. Hmmmm. Anyway it will help. Thanks.

 

Paulette

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I will look at possibilities again after Easter.

 

Martin

 

 

You off on holiday again Martin? :)

 

Allan

 

Very soon, especially as one of the jobs next week is to collect and prepare our new motorhome for a couple of initial shakedown trips. Once that is done we will be away even more in 2017! :)

Edited by Martin P Wilson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Is everyone moved to the new system now?

 

I'm still on the old system"

 

Still with you Callum- guess they are leaving the best to last!

 

Regen

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Think the date field of the metadata from the filename or caption or camera info is by default - staying put - regardless of any manual changes made"

 

Barry,

 

You're right about this. The proof is that my film scans do revert to the "Add Date" message after I delete the Jan xxxx date, and stay that way. As film scans they don't have a date in the metadata (if that's the right term). I'd rather that the year continue to show, but the system won't allow a partial date.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just came across another bug in the new system.

I have two very similar images with the same tags, supertags, descriptions, etc. When looking at the thumbnails, the discoverability of one of them is orange, and the other is green. However, when I click in the thumbnail that is orange, the discoverability bar at the top of the image is displayed in green, at the exact same level as the second image that appeared green in the thumbnails view. I guess we cannot trust the bars shown in the thumbnails…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This new tool is horrible. I have no idea what images are on sale, or not. The filtering is terrible.

 

I worked in the IT industry for over 25 years and under my watch, this would have never made it out of the door.

 

Alamy - you really need to do something about this, it's terrible. If you need someone technical to come in, talk to me.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This new tool is horrible. I have no idea what images are on sale, or not. The filtering is terrible.

 

I worked in the IT industry for over 25 years and under my watch, this would have never made it out of the door.

 

Alamy - you really need to do something about this, it's terrible. If you need someone technical to come in, talk to me.

Other than the lack of a "ready" status it's as it always was- images go live when the database updates, usually late afternoon these days. If you mean images with the minimum annotation to go on sale, it's under the discoverability tab.

It's a lot easier to get rid of stray spammy keywords in a batch now- I've just done a couple of hundred in ten minutes or so, although because tags are not alphabetical it takes a few update cycles to be sure you've got

them all.

Oh, and I wasn't in IT for 25 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This new tool is horrible. I have no idea what images are on sale, or not. The filtering is terrible.

 

I worked in the IT industry for over 25 years and under my watch, this would have never made it out of the door.

 

Alamy - you really need to do something about this, it's terrible. If you need someone technical to come in, talk to me.

Other than the lack of a "ready" status it's as it always was- images go live when the database updates, usually late afternoon these days. If you mean images with the minimum annotation to go on sale, it's under the discoverability tab.

It's a lot easier to get rid of stray spammy keywords in a batch now- I've just done a couple of hundred in ten minutes or so, although because tags are not alphabetical it takes a few update cycles to be sure you've got

them all.

Oh, and I wasn't in IT for 25 years.

 

 

How do I tell which images I have filled in the (now) optional information for? Before it was mandatory so it flagged, now it is optional, I can't see a way of finding out which ones haven't been filled in.

 

Also, why is an image considered optimized with 50 tags? That makes no sense. I can fill it with rubbish and it is "optimised".

Edited by Andrew Spiers
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, in the submission list on the left hand side, why do I care how many images I have submitted? I can see that I have had 45 failed images over 10 years so what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, in the submission list on the left hand side, why do I care how many images I have submitted? I can see that I have had 45 failed images over 10 years so what?

I agree. This area of the UI is a complete waste of screen real estate. What would have been really useful is an area where you could drag and drop images for batch editing as in the old system so you can see clearly what you are working on. The inability to search and filter simultaneously is a serious flaw as well. I wonder how much time and money was spent on properly consulting knowledgeable users when designing the interface. This system has serious design flaws that will not be cured by bug fixes.

Edited by MDM
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, in the submission list on the left hand side, why do I care how many images I have submitted? I can see that I have had 45 failed images over 10 years so what?

You can find a given sub quickly. The can now be renamed so you know what's in them. Probably not worth going back, but handy from now on. As for fails, it's just some info from track submissions. Readily ignorable.

You can get rid of the subs panel if you want to.

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

How do I tell which images I have filled in the (now) optional information for? Before it was mandatory so it flagged, now it is optional, I can't see a way of finding out which ones haven't been filled in.

 

Also, why is an image considered optimized with 50 tags? That makes no sense. I can fill it with rubbish and it is "optimised".

 

Generally the feedback was that too much info was mandatory and ditching some of it would simplify annotation. Your defaults go in automatically though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do the numbers work?

 

I have 5067 passed image

299 failed images

Total 5366

 

Yet the left hand panel has 5612 images.

 

I have lost 246 somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deleted duplicate subs? I have a few of those from when I've reuploaded unnecessarily after a partial fail. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a way to find deletions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Regarding not being able to delete the date is a problem for archive material where the date is not always known.  I would rather have the option of 'no date' rather than an incorrect one.

 

John

 

Yes the date is a problem. I started just putting in the year a while back as that was allowed under the old system and now all those images default to Jan 1 of that year it seems. This is really silly for subjects where the season is evident in the image - spring flowers on January 1st in the northern hemisphere for example. And it is not possible to locate these images by searching. Bugs bugs bugs galore.

 

The !st. Jan. date doesn't show on the search result page, just the year.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Regarding not being able to delete the date is a problem for archive material where the date is not always known.  I would rather have the option of 'no date' rather than an incorrect one.

 

John

 

Yes the date is a problem. I started just putting in the year a while back as that was allowed under the old system and now all those images default to Jan 1 of that year it seems. This is really silly for subjects where the season is evident in the image - spring flowers on January 1st in the northern hemisphere for example. And it is not possible to locate these images by searching. Bugs bugs bugs galore.

 

The !st. Jan. date doesn't show on the search result page, just the year.

 

Looks like you're right. Well spotted. Thanks. I won't bother wasting time correcting the ones that appear as Jan1st in AIM.

 

It's still a bug though. It should show the same date in AIM as on the live site. I've wasted probably a few hours looking up the full dates to correct them because the images appeared to be displaying incorrect info - a further pain because I always include the date in the filename and the filename doesn't show in the AIM search so it requires locating the original image on my computer.

Edited by MDM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do the numbers work?

 

I have 5067 passed image

299 failed images

Total 5366

 

Yet the left hand panel has 5612 images.

 

I have lost 246 somewhere.

 

Images in failed batches that you resubmitted and passed so counted twice? I  see something similar but can't be bothered doing the addition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has this happened to any of you?

 

I had two batches of images approved on January 28th, one with 14 images, and the other with 13 images. They are all photographs and have been added as photographs in the IM system.
 
After they were put on sale I noticed they did not show in my searches. I then used the advanced search option, filtering the images by my contributor name. None of the images appear in the search when I select Photographs, but oddly enough, they appear when I select All images. That means that, although they are all photographs, none of these images will show up on buyers searches if they select Photographs as the search criteria.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Has this happened to any of you?

 

I had two batches of images approved on January 28th, one with 14 images, and the other with 13 images. They are all photographs and have been added as photographs in the IM system.
 
After they were put on sale I noticed they did not show in my searches. I then used the advanced search option, filtering the images by my contributor name. None of the images appear in the search when I select Photographs, but oddly enough, they appear when I select All images. That means that, although they are all photographs, none of these images will show up on buyers searches if they select Photographs as the search criteria.

 

 

I cannot reproduce what you describe Rubens. It seems to be working for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

> the filename doesn't show in the AIM search so it requires locating the original image on my computer.

 

Maybe include the filename as a tag from now on.

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.