Dont blame the Beta testers for the Image Management problems

[Gennadii Rybalov]

 

 

 

 

Я думаю, что снова красные стрелки будут летать мне прямо сейчас, но мои два пенса.

Противники все новое всегда было много. Кажется, что каждый хочет жить в старой, проверенной, как и в те дни, когда "вспашки с быками и посева", а когда трактор был изобретен, но до сих пор приспособлен к его плугом, также были противники.

Я думаю, что время расставит все на свои места, и те, у кого есть очень приличный портфель, не страдает от нововведений.

"Почта отправить голубей" - отправить по электронной почте itnrnet.

Вот два варианта приходят в сравнении.

Вскоре я недопонимание исчезнет, ​​и практическое применение новых алгоритмов (кстати все микро-то подобное происходит в это время)

 

 

Вы используете Google Translate?

 

Вы абсолютно правы. В то время как мой английский не позволяет мне другой вариант. Извините!

 

 

Вы добились огромного прогресса с английского языка. Теперь я могу сказать, теперь я понимаю, что вы говорите. Я знаю, что трудно изменить, но, для меня, как я работал до изменения сделал изменение действительно разочарование один. Я могу работать только с моими старыми изображениями, тратя слишком много времени, сокращение количества ключевых слов, так это новая вещь действительно не улучшение, хотя для меня это, кажется, для некоторых других.

 

Полетт

 

+1

Может быть, я делаю что-то неправильно, но когда несколько дней назад, я переехал в новую систему, у меня было около 300 изображений в оранжевом, теперь все зеленые. Оказывается мои изображения были использованы довольно должным образом оборудовано с ключевыми словами, если новая система настолько мало кто из них появился в оранжевом?!

[York Photographer]

I was not a beta tester, but I have seen quite a few comments of incredulity that the IM problems were not sorted out during beta testing. 

 

Frankly that's not the nub of the problem. The problem is that Alamy made 2 very significant changes within a very short space of time. On 5th Dec they introduced a new search engine algorithm, and then a month or so later they introduced the new IM system.

 

 

When I was a GP (family doctor), and had a patient who needed some changes to their medication, I never introduced more than one change at a time. If you did that, and there were subsequent problems, you had no idea which of the two new medications had caused the problem, or indeed whether the problem was due to the combination of the two. You introduced one medication first, looked to see the results and then, and only then, after a further period of stability, did you then introduce the second medication and did the same again.

 

Some (not all)  of the obvious problems with the new search engine/IM system are difficult to sort out for this reason, and the beta-testers only tested the new IM system. 

 

If Alamy is reading this, Please consider introducing one of the changes at a time. The new IM system is obviously here to stay, and I can understand they wont want to go back to the previous IM. The search engine changes, however would be easy to reverse (indeed they have reversed back to the old search engine system a few times recently). 

 

I would strongly suggest to Alamy the following

 

1. Revert back to the Old Search engine system

2. Sort out the problems with the new IM system, no matter how long it takes

3. Once these have been done, and the IM system has been working properly for a sufficient period of time, THEN introduce the new search engine algorithm.

 

Kumar (the Doc one)

 

I was asked to test it in the first batch, took me 20 mins to figure out it was clumsy and fiddly. I asked to be put back on the old system, and was told it's here to stay. 

 

I haven't bothered keywording anything since!

[NYCat]

 

 

 

 

 

Я думаю, что снова красные стрелки будут летать мне прямо сейчас, но мои два пенса.

Противники все новое всегда было много. Кажется, что каждый хочет жить в старой, проверенной, как и в те дни, когда "вспашки с быками и посева", а когда трактор был изобретен, но до сих пор приспособлен к его плугом, также были противники.

Я думаю, что время расставит все на свои места, и те, у кого есть очень приличный портфель, не страдает от нововведений.

"Почта отправить голубей" - отправить по электронной почте itnrnet.

Вот два варианта приходят в сравнении.

Вскоре я недопонимание исчезнет, ​​и практическое применение новых алгоритмов (кстати все микро-то подобное происходит в это время)

 

 

Вы используете Google Translate?

 

Вы абсолютно правы. В то время как мой английский не позволяет мне другой вариант. Извините!

 

 

Вы добились огромного прогресса с английского языка. Теперь я могу сказать, теперь я понимаю, что вы говорите. Я знаю, что трудно изменить, но, для меня, как я работал до изменения сделал изменение действительно разочарование один. Я могу работать только с моими старыми изображениями, тратя слишком много времени, сокращение количества ключевых слов, так это новая вещь действительно не улучшение, хотя для меня это, кажется, для некоторых других.

 

Полетт

 

+1

Может быть, я делаю что-то неправильно, но когда несколько дней назад, я переехал в новую систему, у меня было около 300 изображений в оранжевом, теперь все зеленые. Оказывается мои изображения были использованы довольно должным образом оборудовано с ключевыми словами, если новая система настолько мало кто из них появился в оранжевом?!

 

 

Oh wow. All of a sudden I speak Russian. What fun. I'll be able to read my favorite, Nabokov, in Russian.

 

Paulette

[Gennadii Rybalov]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Я думаю, что снова красные стрелки будут летать мне прямо сейчас, но мои два пенса.

Противники все новое всегда было много. Кажется, что каждый хочет жить в старой, проверенной, как и в те дни, когда "вспашки с быками и посева", а когда трактор был изобретен, но до сих пор приспособлен к его плугом, также были противники.

Я думаю, что время расставит все на свои места, и те, у кого есть очень приличный портфель, не страдает от нововведений.

"Почта отправить голубей" - отправить по электронной почте itnrnet.

Вот два варианта приходят в сравнении.

Вскоре я недопонимание исчезнет, ​​и практическое применение новых алгоритмов (кстати все микро-то подобное происходит в это время)

 

 

Вы используете Google Translate?

 

Вы абсолютно правы. В то время как мой английский не позволяет мне другой вариант. Извините!

 

 

Вы добились огромного прогресса с английского языка. Теперь я могу сказать, теперь я понимаю, что вы говорите. Я знаю, что трудно изменить, но, для меня, как я работал до изменения сделал изменение действительно разочарование один. Я могу работать только с моими старыми изображениями, тратя слишком много времени, сокращение количества ключевых слов, так это новая вещь действительно не улучшение, хотя для меня это, кажется, для некоторых других.

 

Полетт

 

+1

Может быть, я делаю что-то неправильно, но когда несколько дней назад, я переехал в новую систему, у меня было около 300 изображений в оранжевом, теперь все зеленые. Оказывается мои изображения были использованы довольно должным образом оборудовано с ключевыми словами, если новая система настолько мало кто из них появился в оранжевом?!

 

 

Oh wow. All of a sudden I speak Russian. What fun. I'll be able to read my favorite, Nabokov, in Russian.

 

Paulette

 

Paulette! I'm happy for you! Whether more will be able to!

[Planets]

I was not a beta tester, but I have seen quite a few comments of incredulity that the IM problems were not sorted out during beta testing. 

 

Frankly that's not the nub of the problem. The problem is that Alamy made 2 very significant changes within a very short space of time. On 5th Dec they introduced a new search engine algorithm, and then a month or so later they introduced the new IM system.

 

 

When I was a GP (family doctor), and had a patient who needed some changes to their medication, I never introduced more than one change at a time. If you did that, and there were subsequent problems, you had no idea which of the two new medications had caused the problem, or indeed whether the problem was due to the combination of the two. You introduced one medication first, looked to see the results and then, and only then, after a further period of stability, did you then introduce the second medication and did the same again.

 

Some (not all)  of the obvious problems with the new search engine/IM system are difficult to sort out for this reason, and the beta-testers only tested the new IM system. 

 

If Alamy is reading this, Please consider introducing one of the changes at a time. The new IM system is obviously here to stay, and I can understand they wont want to go back to the previous IM. The search engine changes, however would be easy to reverse (indeed they have reversed back to the old search engine system a few times recently). 

 

I would strongly suggest to Alamy the following

 

1. Revert back to the Old Search engine system

2. Sort out the problems with the new IM system, no matter how long it takes

3. Once these have been done, and the IM system has been working properly for a sufficient period of time, THEN introduce the new search engine algorithm.

 

Kumar (the Doc one)

 

Doc

Good evening

 

You are correct the traditional approach to problem solving is to only change one variable at a time and monitor the effect, before moving on.

 

However there are now lots of different methods to speed problem solving, also to validate new products including Taguchi, MSA, ANOVA.

 

There is also software such as Minitab which can speed the data analysis.

 

Hope this helps

[Planets]

 

I was not a beta tester, but I have seen quite a few comments of incredulity that the IM problems were not sorted out during beta testing. 

 

Frankly that's not the nub of the problem. The problem is that Alamy made 2 very significant changes within a very short space of time. On 5th Dec they introduced a new search engine algorithm, and then a month or so later they introduced the new IM system.

 

 

When I was a GP (family doctor), and had a patient who needed some changes to their medication, I never introduced more than one change at a time. If you did that, and there were subsequent problems, you had no idea which of the two new medications had caused the problem, or indeed whether the problem was due to the combination of the two. You introduced one medication first, looked to see the results and then, and only then, after a further period of stability, did you then introduce the second medication and did the same again.

 

Some (not all)  of the obvious problems with the new search engine/IM system are difficult to sort out for this reason, and the beta-testers only tested the new IM system. 

 

If Alamy is reading this, Please consider introducing one of the changes at a time. The new IM system is obviously here to stay, and I can understand they wont want to go back to the previous IM. The search engine changes, however would be easy to reverse (indeed they have reversed back to the old search engine system a few times recently). 

 

I would strongly suggest to Alamy the following

 

1. Revert back to the Old Search engine system

2. Sort out the problems with the new IM system, no matter how long it takes

3. Once these have been done, and the IM system has been working properly for a sufficient period of time, THEN introduce the new search engine algorithm.

 

Kumar (the Doc one)

Doc

Good evening

You are correct the traditional approach to problem solving is to only change one variable at a time and monitor the effect, before moving on.

However there are now lots of different methods to speed problem solving, also to validate new products including Taguchi, MSA, ANOVA. Six sigma

 

There is also software such as Minitab which can speed the data analysis.

Hope this helps

[M.Chapman]

I was not a beta tester, but I have seen quite a few comments of incredulity that the IM problems were not sorted out during beta testing. 

 

Frankly that's not the nub of the problem. The problem is that Alamy made 2 very significant changes within a very short space of time. On 5th Dec they introduced a new search engine algorithm, and then a month or so later they introduced the new IM system.

 

 

When I was a GP (family doctor), and had a patient who needed some changes to their medication, I never introduced more than one change at a time. If you did that, and there were subsequent problems, you had no idea which of the two new medications had caused the problem, or indeed whether the problem was due to the combination of the two. You introduced one medication first, looked to see the results and then, and only then, after a further period of stability, did you then introduce the second medication and did the same again.

 

Some (not all)  of the obvious problems with the new search engine/IM system are difficult to sort out for this reason, and the beta-testers only tested the new IM system. 

 

If Alamy is reading this, Please consider introducing one of the changes at a time. The new IM system is obviously here to stay, and I can understand they wont want to go back to the previous IM. The search engine changes, however would be easy to reverse (indeed they have reversed back to the old search engine system a few times recently). 

 

I would strongly suggest to Alamy the following

 

1. Revert back to the Old Search engine system

2. Sort out the problems with the new IM system, no matter how long it takes

3. Once these have been done, and the IM system has been working properly for a sufficient period of time, THEN introduce the new search engine algorithm.

 

Kumar (the Doc one)

 

I suspect the problem is more about having the software resources to fix the problems rather than being able to untangle the combined effects of the new MI and Search. After all most images were keyworded with the old system and have been unaffected by the new MI.

 

I suspect Alamy only have a small software group and that releasing two major changes at once may have caught them out. There are more problems than they anticipated and they are struggling with limited resources (and dare I say it potentially badly designed and tested software) to fix the problems. It also appears they may not have  a separate "test bed" to evaluate the effects of changes/fixes without trying them on the live system. Hence the flipping back and forth between the old and new search algorithms as they try out new ideas/try to fix the problems?.

 

The lack of any fixes to the bugs in the new MI perhaps suggests that all efforts are currently focussed on getting the search engine right, which Alamy see as the most important issue, since the performance of the search engine has an immediate effect on sales. Where as the performance of MI takes longer to have any major effect on sales, even if it does frustrate contributors.

 

Having been in very similar situations in my previous role as a Product Design manager with a small software group, I can sympathise. We learnt the hard way and, in the end, we adopted several key principles

 

1) Only undertake one major project at a time and over-resource it, so that progress is fast and focussed, and there's contingency for unforeseen problems

2) Follow rigorous structured design methods from requirements capture through design, implementation, testing, release and bug fixing

3) Carry out a rigorous and harsh "fitness for market review" before releasing product

 

The level of bugs went down, efficiency went up. Getting it right 1st time is key. "Fire fighting" after release annoys customers and often multiplies the problems, especially if the software isn't well structured so "quick fixes" often have unexpected consequences.

 

I'm pleased Alamy is attempting to improve MI (which they hope will help us as contributors), but it's a shame it's got off to such a shaky start.

[Betty LaRue]

Maybe I'm missing something but I think the emphasis on Bridge here and elsewhere is potentially misleading as the reason people are saying that Bridges is supposedly advantageous over Lightroom is to do with the order of the keywords or tags. However, Alamy has said several times that order of tags is unimportant in searches. http://discussion.alamy.com/index.php?/topic/7101-new-image-manager-quotes-direct-from-alamy-only

 

Alamy are saying that it is proximity of the words within the tags that is important and this can be dealt with by creating multi-word tags whether that is in Bridge, Lightroom, another program that does keywords or a separate text document and pasted into the new IM.

 

To be clear, I am not saying don't keyword before upload, just that the importance being afforded to tag order in contrast to word order in multi-word tags is incorrect (and hence the importance of using Bridge rather than Lightroom or another program) if Alamy's responses to questions is to be believed. I think it would be useful if those that are advocating the use of Bridge could demonstrate why it is actually better than Lightroom.

Ok, I'll take the bait, then wait for you to shoot me down.

We have 10 supertags. And I do make phrases. I would much rather make those phrases in Bridge to begin with than have to do it in MI. It's very time saving. I don't have to type black,horse,running and then in MI, "black horse running" as a phrase. No, in Bridge I can type it once as a phrase to begin with, and it arrives as a phrase.

I just had 15 images approved today and it took me 8 minutes or less to supertag, assign license type and choose a catagory. That's not 8 minutes each, but 8 minutes for the whole 15 images.

There are many more tags in the body that really don't need to be phrases, but it's nice to have them in the order of importance the way I originally keyworded them.

If I'm not mistaken, Alamy says the order of supertags doesn't matter, they carry equal weight, but I'm wondering if the jury is still out on the rest.

When I keyword in Bridge, I'm careful to put my important phrases and words first. When I get them in MI, they are right there at the top so I don't have to hunt and peck them out through an alphabetical grouping. Just click the first 10...I'm done. On complicated images that call for a lot of tags, I wouldn't enjoy searching through an alphabetical list for my supertag choices.

 

Everything about doing it in Bridge is a huge timesaver. Time is money. I'd rather be creating images to chase the money.

Betty

[Matt Ashmore]

2) Follow rigorous structured design methods from requirements capture through design, implementation, testing, release and bug fixing

 

 

 

Everything's agile nowadays.. it's all about having a vision and doing sprints, having daily scrum meetings, iterative design and testing to get you there... You have a scrum master and a backlogs...

 

.. but yes.. I agree with you. 

.. and I too work on software projects which don't entirely go as planned

[NYCat]

 

Maybe I'm missing something but I think the emphasis on Bridge here and elsewhere is potentially misleading as the reason people are saying that Bridges is supposedly advantageous over Lightroom is to do with the order of the keywords or tags. However, Alamy has said several times that order of tags is unimportant in searches. http://discussion.alamy.com/index.php?/topic/7101-new-image-manager-quotes-direct-from-alamy-only

 

Alamy are saying that it is proximity of the words within the tags that is important and this can be dealt with by creating multi-word tags whether that is in Bridge, Lightroom, another program that does keywords or a separate text document and pasted into the new IM.

 

To be clear, I am not saying don't keyword before upload, just that the importance being afforded to tag order in contrast to word order in multi-word tags is incorrect (and hence the importance of using Bridge rather than Lightroom or another program) if Alamy's responses to questions is to be believed. I think it would be useful if those that are advocating the use of Bridge could demonstrate why it is actually better than Lightroom.

Ok, I'll take the bait, then wait for you to shoot me down.

We have 10 supertags. And I do make phrases. I would much rather make those phrases in Bridge to begin with than have to do it in MI. It's very time saving. I don't have to type black,horse,running and then in MI, "black horse running" as a phrase. No, in Bridge I can type it once as a phrase to begin with, and it arrives as a phrase.

I just had 15 images approved today and it took me 8 minutes or less to supertag, assign license type and choose a catagory. That's not 8 minutes each, but 8 minutes for the whole 15 images.

There are many more tags in the body that really don't need to be phrases, but it's nice to have them in the order of importance the way I originally keyworded them.

If I'm not mistaken, Alamy says the order of supertags doesn't matter, they carry equal weight, but I'm wondering if the jury is still out on the rest.

When I keyword in Bridge, I'm careful to put my important phrases and words first. When I get them in MI, they are right there at the top so I don't have to hunt and peck them out through an alphabetical grouping. Just click the first 10...I'm done. On complicated images that call for a lot of tags, I wouldn't enjoy searching through an alphabetical list for my supertag choices.

 

Everything about doing it in Bridge is a huge timesaver. Time is money. I'd rather be creating images to chase the money.

Betty

 

 

Betty, I will admit that having my most important keywords first so I could click them as supertags would be very handy. I need to do more with the ways that Lightroom makes keywording easy. I already use the "suggestions" that will give me a scientific name and other associated keywords with a subject but I know there is more and I have been lazy about learning it all. We shall see.

 

Paulette

[Betty LaRue]

"Betty, I will admit that having my most important keywords first so I could click them as supertags would be very handy. I need to do more with the ways that Lightroom makes keywording easy. I already use the "suggestions" that will give me a scientific name and other associated keywords with a subject but I know there is more and I have been lazy about learning it all. We shall see.

Paulette"

 

Since I've never done it in LR, I've not explored the options. I'm confident you'll find a workflow that works for you.

I think most are simply stunned by the new MI. Understandably so. If Alamy can reinstate copy/paste, that will go a long way for a lot of people.

But the beauty of Bridge is I don't miss it, have no need of it. That would still make preparing images take time. That's what I hated about the old MI, having to distribute into three boxes.

 

A couple of months down the road, most will have found a path. I hope it is a good path, even though the journey may be bumpy.

 

Betty

[MDM]

 

Maybe I'm missing something but I think the emphasis on Bridge here and elsewhere is potentially misleading as the reason people are saying that Bridges is supposedly advantageous over Lightroom is to do with the order of the keywords or tags. However, Alamy has said several times that order of tags is unimportant in searches. http://discussion.alamy.com/index.php?/topic/7101-new-image-manager-quotes-direct-from-alamy-only

 

Alamy are saying that it is proximity of the words within the tags that is important and this can be dealt with by creating multi-word tags whether that is in Bridge, Lightroom, another program that does keywords or a separate text document and pasted into the new IM.

 

To be clear, I am not saying don't keyword before upload, just that the importance being afforded to tag order in contrast to word order in multi-word tags is incorrect (and hence the importance of using Bridge rather than Lightroom or another program) if Alamy's responses to questions is to be believed. I think it would be useful if those that are advocating the use of Bridge could demonstrate why it is actually better than Lightroom.

Ok, I'll take the bait, then wait for you to shoot me down.

We have 10 supertags. And I do make phrases. I would much rather make those phrases in Bridge to begin with than have to do it in MI. It's very time saving. I don't have to type black,horse,running and then in MI, "black horse running" as a phrase. No, in Bridge I can type it once as a phrase to begin with, and it arrives as a phrase.

I just had 15 images approved today and it took me 8 minutes or less to supertag, assign license type and choose a catagory. That's not 8 minutes each, but 8 minutes for the whole 15 images.

There are many more tags in the body that really don't need to be phrases, but it's nice to have them in the order of importance the way I originally keyworded them.

If I'm not mistaken, Alamy says the order of supertags doesn't matter, they carry equal weight, but I'm wondering if the jury is still out on the rest.

When I keyword in Bridge, I'm careful to put my important phrases and words first. When I get them in MI, they are right there at the top so I don't have to hunt and peck them out through an alphabetical grouping. Just click the first 10...I'm done. On complicated images that call for a lot of tags, I wouldn't enjoy searching through an alphabetical list for my supertag choices.

 

Everything about doing it in Bridge is a huge timesaver. Time is money. I'd rather be creating images to chase the money.

Betty

 

 

I don't shoot anything except pictures so not intending to shoot you down. My question was about why you are advocating Bridge over other programs for keywording with the new IM but nothing you say there answers my question except that it is your personal preference to use Bridge. It seems that this is because you like the tags being in order when they appear in the IM. Alamy has said several times that the order of tags has no relevance in the search engine - only proximity is important. So it seems to me that it is purely a neatness issue for you in how the keywords look in the IM.

 

Having used Bridge for several years before I started using Lightroom, I know that Lightroom used properly is far more efficient as an image management system in general than Bridge. So I would strongly argue against your statement that "Everything about doing it in Bridge is a huge timesaver. Time is money. I'd rather be creating images to chase the money." I would argue the complete opposite. But knowing that you use Lightroom in a rather non-standard way from several previous conversations and are not familiar with many aspects of the program, I think it is futile to continue this discussion. Time is money as you say and we are spending far too much time on this.

[Betty LaRue]

POW! I'm wounded.

 

You asked, I'm not pushing this on you, MDM. I couldn't care less what you think of Bridge or my unconventional use of LR. Simply, you asked for an explanation, I gave my viewpoint. Your question said nothing about image management. And I never said Bridge was better for image management. And never have. I'm talking strictly about keywording before upload.

 

All I've done is to tell people who have not been able to move their tags around and been upset about it that Bridge avoids the necessity of having to do that.

Unlike some I know who think their way is the only way and fuss about it, I've only told how it works for me with no expectation that contributors will do it just because I say how easy it is. And I didn't suggest you use it.

 

You tried to shove LR image management down my throat a long time ago then made veiled barbs directed at me when I didn't snap to. Well, frankly, if it weren't for the upright tool, I wouldn't use LR at all. I've managed my images for 10 years just fine without it.

 

But I recocognize those who find it useful and love it have their reasons. And that's a good thing. I respect their opinions as mine should be respected.

 

I think you only asked so you could trash my opinion. I agree our interaction is pointless and a total wate of my time.

Done deal.

[MDM]

POW! I'm wounded.

 

You asked, I'm not pushing this on you, MDM. I couldn't care less what you think of Bridge or my unconventional use of LR. Simply, you asked for an explanation, I gave my viewpoint. Your question said nothing about image management. And I never said Bridge was better for image management. And never have. I'm talking strictly about keywording before upload.

 

All I've done is to tell people who have not been able to move their tags around and been upset about it that Bridge avoids the necessity of having to do that.

Unlike some I know who think their way is the only way and fuss about it, I've only told how it works for me with no expectation that contributors will do it just because I say how easy it is. And I didn't suggest you use it.

 

You tried to shove LR image management down my throat a long time ago then made veiled barbs directed at me when I didn't snap to. Well, frankly, if it weren't for the upright tool, I wouldn't use LR at all. I've managed my images for 10 years just fine without it.

 

But I recocognize those who find it useful and love it have their reasons. And that's a good thing. I respect their opinions as mine should be respected.

 

I think you only asked so you could trash my opinion. I agree our interaction is pointless and a total wate of my time.

Done deal.

 

OK. I only wanted to understand why you are suggesting people use Bridge for the new IM- not to knock you but simply to understand the reasoning behind your assertions that Bridge is the best tool. I still don't I'm afraid. I enjoy a good rational discussion or argument and that was all that was intended here - I was seeking the truth not intending to cause a fight.

 

In regard to Lightroom my comments before were an attempt to help you understand it and not to shove it down your throat. Oh well.

 

Apologies to Doc for the highjack.

[Bryan]

I wonder if the change to a tag system was driven by the importing/sharing of images wholesale from other agencies and collections. Maybe the tag system is nearer to the industry standard?

 

Having made that commercial decision, a new IM became inevitable.

 

I have no problems when presenting new images via LR (and Betty I am a fellow Luddite as far as that program is concerned, but once learned, the database and editing facilities are second to none).

 

However the necessary amendments to my existing stock is proving to be a painful and time consuming operation. I can see benefits along the way, but the lack of a copy and paste facility, along with the inability to edit existing tags makes it so much harder.

 

I also dislike the tendency of the software to immediately take up a copied phrase, without allowing any changes or additions. For example you might want to paste part of a tag from a Google search, but no modification is possible.

[M.Chapman]

 

2) Follow rigorous structured design methods from requirements capture through design, implementation, testing, release and bug fixing

 

 

 

Everything's agile nowadays.. it's all about having a vision and doing sprints, having daily scrum meetings, iterative design and testing to get you there... You have a scrum master and a backlogs...

 

 

Is this why we have the mess that is Windows 10, with it's stream of bugs and updates and a half finished inconsistent UI...    

 

The ability to upgrade over the Internet has allowed organisations to inflict badly designed and tested software on their users, because they believe they can easily fix problems with an online update/patch/download later.

 

In my early days we had to commit to bulk duplication and distribution of software on disks or CDs. It sure focussed the mind to make sure you got it right. Whilst I I would never argue that this method of distribution was better, it did encourage (force?) more discipline in the software design and release process.

[M.Chapman]

 

Maybe I'm missing something but I think the emphasis on Bridge here and elsewhere is potentially misleading as the reason people are saying that Bridges is supposedly advantageous over Lightroom is to do with the order of the keywords or tags. However, Alamy has said several times that order of tags is unimportant in searches. http://discussion.alamy.com/index.php?/topic/7101-new-image-manager-quotes-direct-from-alamy-only

 

Alamy are saying that it is proximity of the words within the tags that is important and this can be dealt with by creating multi-word tags whether that is in Bridge, Lightroom, another program that does keywords or a separate text document and pasted into the new IM.

 

To be clear, I am not saying don't keyword before upload, just that the importance being afforded to tag order in contrast to word order in multi-word tags is incorrect (and hence the importance of using Bridge rather than Lightroom or another program) if Alamy's responses to questions is to be believed. I think it would be useful if those that are advocating the use of Bridge could demonstrate why it is actually better than Lightroom.

Ok, I'll take the bait, then wait for you to shoot me down.

We have 10 supertags. And I do make phrases. I would much rather make those phrases in Bridge to begin with than have to do it in MI. It's very time saving. I don't have to type black,horse,running and then in MI, "black horse running" as a phrase. No, in Bridge I can type it once as a phrase to begin with, and it arrives as a phrase.

I just had 15 images approved today and it took me 8 minutes or less to supertag, assign license type and choose a catagory. That's not 8 minutes each, but 8 minutes for the whole 15 images.

 

Not sure I understand the distinction. You can type black, horse, running, black horse running into the new MI tag entry box and hit add (+). Isn't this the same amount of typing as required in Bridge?

 

If however you're saying that it's great that keywords and phrases in the metadata of uploaded jpegs (however you got them in there using Bridge, LR or whatever) are now more reliably imported by the the MI, and it's easier to make some of them supertags (no need to cut and paste between main, comprehensive and essential boxes), then I see what you mean.

[gvallee]

 

 

Maybe I'm missing something but I think the emphasis on Bridge here and elsewhere is potentially misleading as the reason people are saying that Bridges is supposedly advantageous over Lightroom is to do with the order of the keywords or tags. However, Alamy has said several times that order of tags is unimportant in searches. http://discussion.alamy.com/index.php?/topic/7101-new-image-manager-quotes-direct-from-alamy-only

 

Alamy are saying that it is proximity of the words within the tags that is important and this can be dealt with by creating multi-word tags whether that is in Bridge, Lightroom, another program that does keywords or a separate text document and pasted into the new IM.

 

To be clear, I am not saying don't keyword before upload, just that the importance being afforded to tag order in contrast to word order in multi-word tags is incorrect (and hence the importance of using Bridge rather than Lightroom or another program) if Alamy's responses to questions is to be believed. I think it would be useful if those that are advocating the use of Bridge could demonstrate why it is actually better than Lightroom.

Ok, I'll take the bait, then wait for you to shoot me down.

We have 10 supertags. And I do make phrases. I would much rather make those phrases in Bridge to begin with than have to do it in MI. It's very time saving. I don't have to type black,horse,running and then in MI, "black horse running" as a phrase. No, in Bridge I can type it once as a phrase to begin with, and it arrives as a phrase.

I just had 15 images approved today and it took me 8 minutes or less to supertag, assign license type and choose a catagory. That's not 8 minutes each, but 8 minutes for the whole 15 images.

 

Not sure I understand the distinction. You can type black, horse, running, black horse running into the new MI tag entry box and hit add (+). Isn't this the same amount of typing as required in Bridge?

 

 

 

I am not taking sides on LR/Bridge because I have never used or looked at LR, but you only have to type a keyword once in Bridge (I assume also in LR but I don't know). 

I have two ways of doing this:

 

1. use templates as I mentioned before. One template per subject with all the relevant keywords. You then only have to click 'apply template'

2. build a hierarchy, for example I have folders by subjects: landscapes with a series of keywords, cityscapes, etc.... You only have to tick the box of the keyword you want.

 

So in essence, you type it only once in Bridge, not every single time in AIM.

 

Just my method.

 

Gen

[MDM]

 

 

Maybe I'm missing something but I think the emphasis on Bridge here and elsewhere is potentially misleading as the reason people are saying that Bridges is supposedly advantageous over Lightroom is to do with the order of the keywords or tags. However, Alamy has said several times that order of tags is unimportant in searches. http://discussion.alamy.com/index.php?/topic/7101-new-image-manager-quotes-direct-from-alamy-only

 

Alamy are saying that it is proximity of the words within the tags that is important and this can be dealt with by creating multi-word tags whether that is in Bridge, Lightroom, another program that does keywords or a separate text document and pasted into the new IM.

 

To be clear, I am not saying don't keyword before upload, just that the importance being afforded to tag order in contrast to word order in multi-word tags is incorrect (and hence the importance of using Bridge rather than Lightroom or another program) if Alamy's responses to questions is to be believed. I think it would be useful if those that are advocating the use of Bridge could demonstrate why it is actually better than Lightroom.

Ok, I'll take the bait, then wait for you to shoot me down.

We have 10 supertags. And I do make phrases. I would much rather make those phrases in Bridge to begin with than have to do it in MI. It's very time saving. I don't have to type black,horse,running and then in MI, "black horse running" as a phrase. No, in Bridge I can type it once as a phrase to begin with, and it arrives as a phrase.

I just had 15 images approved today and it took me 8 minutes or less to supertag, assign license type and choose a catagory. That's not 8 minutes each, but 8 minutes for the whole 15 images.

There are many more tags in the body that really don't need to be phrases, but it's nice to have them in the order of importance the way I originally keyworded them.

If I'm not mistaken, Alamy says the order of supertags doesn't matter, they carry equal weight, but I'm wondering if the jury is still out on the rest.

When I keyword in Bridge, I'm careful to put my important phrases and words first. When I get them in MI, they are right there at the top so I don't have to hunt and peck them out through an alphabetical grouping. Just click the first 10...I'm done. On complicated images that call for a lot of tags, I wouldn't enjoy searching through an alphabetical list for my supertag choices.

 

Everything about doing it in Bridge is a huge timesaver. Time is money. I'd rather be creating images to chase the money.

Betty

 

 

+100

Agree completely.

 

I also use strings of keywords for most subjects, so I don't forget main words and avoid misspellings. Just have to copy paste them from an excel file. Type "European robin" some pseudonyms, latin name, the required string for garden birds and a few additional keywords if needed and done.

The benefit of keeping the order of keywords is important to me because I also submit to different agencies with each different search engines where the right order might be important (and who don't support phrases). If they prefer to show them alphabetically, they'll have the software to do so, but they can't turn an alphabetical list into an order you would like them to be.

Also made it a habit of storing a small 72 dpi version of each image (with the included caption and keywords). Only need to push a button to do so, because I made a PS action for it. This makes it incredible fast to browse my archive with the simple free sofware "Windows Photo Gallery" (I haven't typed the last letters and I already see the wanted images, latest added appearing first).

 

Cheers,

Philippe

 

 

But you are not a Lightroom user as far as I know from previous discussion here so I'm not sure how you can argue that it is a huge timesaver. I would argue that Lightroom is the massive time saver and that is from direct experience of both programs - I did use Bridge ever since Adobe introduced it in CS2 until about 4 years ago. Bridge can't handle large high-res image collections - hence the need for low res versions. Try managing a collection of even a few thousand images in Bridge and it is massively frustrating. It keeps losing and regenerating the cache, is incredibly slow in searches and has to have direct access to the files (it's a file browser after all, not an image management system). My main LR catalog has over 60,000 images and I can search and find them almost instantaneously. Try that with Bridge.

 

With Lightroom you don't need to store low res versions of the files. Lightroom has advanced search and data management tools which obviate the need for any additional low-res images, using other file browsers and so on. Anything you can do with metadata in Bridge, you can do in Lightroom and generally much more efficiently in my experience. That is timesaving to me.

[MDM]

I see the red arrow brigade is back . Easier than rational debate I guess.

[MDM]

 

 

 

 

Maybe I'm missing something but I think the emphasis on Bridge here and elsewhere is potentially misleading as the reason people are saying that Bridges is supposedly advantageous over Lightroom is to do with the order of the keywords or tags. However, Alamy has said several times that order of tags is unimportant in searches. http://discussion.alamy.com/index.php?/topic/7101-new-image-manager-quotes-direct-from-alamy-only

 

Alamy are saying that it is proximity of the words within the tags that is important and this can be dealt with by creating multi-word tags whether that is in Bridge, Lightroom, another program that does keywords or a separate text document and pasted into the new IM.

 

To be clear, I am not saying don't keyword before upload, just that the importance being afforded to tag order in contrast to word order in multi-word tags is incorrect (and hence the importance of using Bridge rather than Lightroom or another program) if Alamy's responses to questions is to be believed. I think it would be useful if those that are advocating the use of Bridge could demonstrate why it is actually better than Lightroom.

Ok, I'll take the bait, then wait for you to shoot me down.

We have 10 supertags. And I do make phrases. I would much rather make those phrases in Bridge to begin with than have to do it in MI. It's very time saving. I don't have to type black,horse,running and then in MI, "black horse running" as a phrase. No, in Bridge I can type it once as a phrase to begin with, and it arrives as a phrase.

I just had 15 images approved today and it took me 8 minutes or less to supertag, assign license type and choose a catagory. That's not 8 minutes each, but 8 minutes for the whole 15 images.

There are many more tags in the body that really don't need to be phrases, but it's nice to have them in the order of importance the way I originally keyworded them.

If I'm not mistaken, Alamy says the order of supertags doesn't matter, they carry equal weight, but I'm wondering if the jury is still out on the rest.

When I keyword in Bridge, I'm careful to put my important phrases and words first. When I get them in MI, they are right there at the top so I don't have to hunt and peck them out through an alphabetical grouping. Just click the first 10...I'm done. On complicated images that call for a lot of tags, I wouldn't enjoy searching through an alphabetical list for my supertag choices.

 

Everything about doing it in Bridge is a huge timesaver. Time is money. I'd rather be creating images to chase the money.

Betty

 

 

+100

Agree completely.

 

I also use strings of keywords for most subjects, so I don't forget main words and avoid misspellings. Just have to copy paste them from an excel file. Type "European robin" some pseudonyms, latin name, the required string for garden birds and a few additional keywords if needed and done.

The benefit of keeping the order of keywords is important to me because I also submit to different agencies with each different search engines where the right order might be important (and who don't support phrases). If they prefer to show them alphabetically, they'll have the software to do so, but they can't turn an alphabetical list into an order you would like them to be.

Also made it a habit of storing a small 72 dpi version of each image (with the included caption and keywords). Only need to push a button to do so, because I made a PS action for it. This makes it incredible fast to browse my archive with the simple free sofware "Windows Photo Gallery" (I haven't typed the last letters and I already see the wanted images, latest added appearing first).

 

Cheers,

Philippe

 

 

But you are not a Lightroom user as far as I know from previous discussion here so I'm not sure how you can argue that it is a huge timesaver. I would argue that Lightroom is the massive time saver and that is from direct experience of both programs - I did use Bridge ever since Adobe introduced it in CS2 until about 4 years ago. Bridge can't handle large high-res image collections - hence the need for low res versions. Try managing a collection of even a few thousand images in Bridge and it is massively frustrating. It keeps losing and regenerating the cache, is incredibly slow in searches and has to have direct access to the files (it's a file browser after all, not an image management system). My main LR catalog has over 60,000 images and I can search and find them almost instantaneously. Try that with Bridge.

 

With Lightroom you don't need to store low res versions of the files. Lightroom has advanced search and data management tools which obviate the need for any additional low-res images, using other file browsers and so on. Anything you can do with metadata in Bridge, you can do in Lightroom and generally much more efficiently in my experience. That is timesaving to me.

 

 

Adding those low resolution images takes the time to press a button. And that archive of LR images which fits on a stick serves me well in different ways. 

B.t.w. is this a contest about the fastest workflow? I'm happy for you that Lightroom is your cup of tea, but it isn't mine. I'm perfectly happy with my workflow, especially because I also submit to other agencies as I already mentioned.

Anyway - though not being religious - I thank god every day on my bare knees that I keyworded my legacy images in Bridge and not in Lightroom, so that I see my tags in the right order. I know, I know, Alamy claims that the order of tags is not important (though I have great doubts about that allegation) though proximity is (Alamy stripped all commas, so my phrases are gone). 

 

Cheers,

Philippe

 

 

Just to clarify - I was just querying why people were emphasising the advantages of Bridge over other programs with the new IM when things took a strange turn . I was genuinely trying to clarify things. If there is misinformation, then it can mislead others come into the forum into thinking that Bridge is the tool to use for the new IM. So it's clear now - all assertions are based on tag order (which according to Alamy is irrelevant)

 

 

B.t.w. is this a contest about the fastest workflow?

The claims above about Bridge's efficiency and timesaving surely must consider the overall workflow which is why I brought this up. I used to do the high and low res versions thing as well with Bridge and my own database for image management but it was very inefficient. For example, if you make a change to the master high res file, you have to change the low res one manually as well.

 

So whatever turns you on I guess - no tea for me - mine is a freshly ground organic Java (coffee that is)

[MDM]

"So whatever turns you on I guess - no tea for me - mine is a freshly ground organic Java   (coffee that is)"

 

No tea for me either. Belgians don't drink hot water with a bland taste. We drink beer ........ good, tasty beer. Not the dishwater you English, Americans, Germans, and Dutch people produce  

 

Cheers,

Philippe (though having a cappuccino for the moment  )

 

Are we off-topic? 

 

I'm Irish

[spacecadet]

 

 

"So whatever turns you on I guess - no tea for me - mine is a freshly ground organic Java   (coffee that is)"

 

No tea for me either. Belgians don't drink hot water with a bland taste. We drink beer ........ good, tasty beer. Not the dishwater you English, Americans, Germans, and Dutch people produce  

 

Cheers,

Philippe (though having a cappuccino for the moment  )

 

Are we off-topic? 

 

I'm Irish

 

 

Guinness is good.................... but that's a stout, strictly speaking not a beer (more some kind of ale).

 

Cheers,

Philippe

 

We call ale beer as well. It's a subset of beer, top-fermented, like some of your weapons-grade stuff.

[Betty LaRue]

 

 

Maybe I'm missing something but I think the emphasis on Bridge here and elsewhere is potentially misleading as the reason people are saying that Bridges is supposedly advantageous over Lightroom is to do with the order of the keywords or tags. However, Alamy has said several times that order of tags is unimportant in searches. http://discussion.alamy.com/index.php?/topic/7101-new-image-manager-quotes-direct-from-alamy-only

 

Alamy are saying that it is proximity of the words within the tags that is important and this can be dealt with by creating multi-word tags whether that is in Bridge, Lightroom, another program that does keywords or a separate text document and pasted into the new IM.

 

To be clear, I am not saying don't keyword before upload, just that the importance being afforded to tag order in contrast to word order in multi-word tags is incorrect (and hence the importance of using Bridge rather than Lightroom or another program) if Alamy's responses to questions is to be believed. I think it would be useful if those that are advocating the use of Bridge could demonstrate why it is actually better than Lightroom.

 

Ok, I'll take the bait, then wait for you to shoot me down.

We have 10 supertags. And I do make phrases. I would much rather make those phrases in Bridge to begin with than have to do it in MI. It's very time saving. I don't have to type black,horse,running and then in MI, "black horse running" as a phrase. No, in Bridge I can type it once as a phrase to begin with, and it arrives as a phrase.

I just had 15 images approved today and it took me 8 minutes or less to supertag, assign license type and choose a catagory. That's not 8 minutes each, but 8 minutes for the whole 15 images.

 

Not sure I understand the distinction. You can type black, horse, running, black horse running into the new MI tag entry box and hit add (+). Isn't this the same amount of typing as required in Bridge?

 

If however you're saying that it's great that keywords and phrases in the metadata of uploaded jpegs (however you got them in there using Bridge, LR or whatever) are now more reliably imported by the the MI, and it's easier to make some of them supertags (no need to cut and paste between main, comprehensive and essential boxes), then I see what you mean.

Hello, Mark,

The main thought here for me is to always tag my images before upload. That way the tags are always with the image. Makes searching for one on my drives easy, although I've not needed to do that forever! .

 

Your thought of doing it in MI is correct. Same amount of typing. But the tags aren't attached to the image, and I would need to type the phrase in the usual way, but remember to think and do in reverse order for singles. Oh, my brain! Just got a cramp.

Betty

[Betty LaRue]

 

 

 

Maybe I'm missing something but I think the emphasis on Bridge here and elsewhere is potentially misleading as the reason people are saying that Bridges is supposedly advantageous over Lightroom is to do with the order of the keywords or tags. However, Alamy has said several times that order of tags is unimportant in searches. http://discussion.alamy.com/index.php?/topic/7101-new-image-manager-quotes-direct-from-alamy-only

 

Alamy are saying that it is proximity of the words within the tags that is important and this can be dealt with by creating multi-word tags whether that is in Bridge, Lightroom, another program that does keywords or a separate text document and pasted into the new IM.

 

To be clear, I am not saying don't keyword before upload, just that the importance being afforded to tag order in contrast to word order in multi-word tags is incorrect (and hence the importance of using Bridge rather than Lightroom or another program) if Alamy's responses to questions is to be believed. I think it would be useful if those that are advocating the use of Bridge could demonstrate why it is actually better than Lightroom.

 

 

Ok, I'll take the bait, then wait for you to shoot me down.

We have 10 supertags. And I do make phrases. I would much rather make those phrases in Bridge to begin with than have to do it in MI. It's very time saving. I don't have to type black,horse,running and then in MI, "black horse running" as a phrase. No, in Bridge I can type it once as a phrase to begin with, and it arrives as a phrase.

I just had 15 images approved today and it took me 8 minutes or less to supertag, assign license type and choose a catagory. That's not 8 minutes each, but 8 minutes for the whole 15 images.

 

Not sure I understand the distinction. You can type black, horse, running, black horse running into the new MI tag entry box and hit add (+). Isn't this the same amount of typing as required in Bridge?

 

I am not taking sides on LR/Bridge because I have never used or looked at LR, but you only have to type a keyword once in Bridge (I assume also in LR but I don't know). 

I have two ways of doing this:

 

1. use templates as I mentioned before. One template per subject with all the relevant keywords. You then only have to click 'apply template'

2. build a hierarchy, for example I have folders by subjects: landscapes with a series of keywords, cityscapes, etc.... You only have to tick the box of the keyword you want.

 

So in essence, you type it only once in Bridge, not every single time in AIM.

 

Just my method.

 

Gen

Yes!!

I forgot to mention that. I've talked before about using my created templates. I apply a template, then only have to add a few more wordsto fit the situation. Thanks Gen for mentioning this.

I have a "Basic" template with all my info and copyright info. I use this for new subjects. Then I have many specialized templates for use, with scientific names. Bless the templates, lol.

Betty