Final Report on Photo Gallery

[SteveColes]

Well, I now understand why some of us have problems with the Photo Gallery response time. The real reason has to do with the way the Gallery was programmed.(over simplified) Basically, we stretched this gallery to its limits. Normally, I would start hounding the people that sold me the software, but the software has changed hands and the new owners have very little financial motivation to fix and enhance this software. So most likely it was it is.

The only thing I can do, change to a different Gallery software that is more robust and is being maintained. There are at least two different packages out there that would probably be acceptable.

However, switching to them would cause some side problems. The biggest one is that ALL existing links to your pictures would be broken. For instance, if you have a link or have embedded a picture that is in a thread, the picture would no longer be visible. If you have a link on another site to a picture hosted on this site, the link would not work.:crybaby2:

But there are certain other advantages to actually making a change. What I don't know is how acceptable or unacceptable this would be to our members. I'm not going to post a poll on this. Instead if you want your opinion to be counted then reply to this thread with your opinion, comments, etc.

Another thing I would ask that you do is go to www.woodworking-galleries.org This is a site that I also run and it is also using one of the packages that I would consider using here. What I would ask you to do, especially those of you who are having slow response times, is to look around and see if that gallery is faster for you. Please reply to this thread your findings and also any comments, etc.

Remember, no replies from you, means you have no right to complain, if we make changes and you don't like them

 

[DaveO]

How many memebers are having problems with the current gallery set up? I find no problems with it, and would hate to have all threads with pictures in them on this site and others end up with the dreaded red X. If this is a widespread problem, then I think a change is warranted, but if not ???

Dave

 

[Ray Martin]

Steve,

I agree with Dave in that we must first question the size of the problem. If it is a problem, then I'd put up with broken links... however, I only havea couple of photos posted... guys like Dave have loads and it would be a bigger headache for him (that definitely gives me a smaller vote).

On the other hand, if we do have a problem, and we suspect the problem of possible growing over time, then the trauma of change may be worth it. We should not take the stance of doing what we do because that's how we've done it... that's a case of the tail wagging the dog.

For me, photo albums do seem slow. I tried the other site and it's photo album... it move along MUCH faster.

So, how much noise have you gotten? From ho many people? Will things get worse as this site grows?

Ray

 

[SteveColes]

It is at least 1/3 and could be 1/2

 

[D L Ames]

Steve, speed has not been an issue for me and I concur with what Dave mentioned about loosing the links. If this happened, individual members might be able to go back and correct/change the link to the photo but I don't really see folks taking the time to do that. Also, I think there is probably a fair number of linked photos in the threads that were posted by some members who don't visit the site very often that would not get fixed.

As for the other software. I visited the Woodworker-galleries.org site you run and scanned a few albums randomly. The only thing I saw that I didn't like was that none of the albums that I visited had any sub-category albums and I think this would make it difficult to organize/search for certain types of photos.

Just my $.02

D L

 

[Monty]

Yea I don't see a way to add sub-categories either, but I haven't looked in a while. Would it be possible to work with a new package and get it to use the same directory structure? Or is that asking for trouble? As a side note, Steve - that site still has the 1600 photos/9 comments bug I mentioned to you before... :-?

 

[toolferone]

Steve, even on my old slow machine at work there is a HUGE difference in speed on the other site. It makes this machine look brand new. I have not tried it at home yet.

 

[Monty]

I agree the other site is faster even for me. I also like the way you can get to your album by clicking on a letter - don't have to scroll way down to find yours.

 

[Canuck]

Steve,

The "other site" is also much, much faster for me. It Screams!!:eusa_clap

I also like the navigation. Whole lot less scrolling trying to find a given members gallery.

As far as the links are concerned, I have to agree that members with lots of photos in threads which are used as reference material (ie DaveO, Monty, Alan - Little Washington and others) it may be pretty painful re-establishing the links. From what I can tell, that would be the only downside to a conversion.

Short answer. I like the gallery at the "other site".:eusa_danc

Wayne

 

[chris99z71]

I agree that it would be painful to update the links in all of the old threads. Especially wonderful reference threads like Monty's workbench tutorial.
But looking towards the future, can we expect speed issues with the current gallery to get worse or remain the same?
I think Mike has the best idea - if it's a possibility. Could we "lock down" the current galleries and rename it "old photo galleries" and then set up a "new photo galleries" with the new software? That would preserve all of the old links but also provide a solution for the future.
If that's not a possibility, i guess my opinion depends on the question of the expected future performance of our current gallery as it grows.

 

[McRabbet]

Steve,

IMHO, preserving sub-categories and old links are both more important than slight speed improvements (BTW, both galleries come up at about the same speed for my slow DSL-Lite connection). One thing to consider with our existing Photo Galleries would be to add an Alphabetical selection option, if possible. That would reduce the first layer to 27 entries (assuming one numerical) and perhaps speed the user to the gallery desired. Just my .02

Rob

 

[cskipper]

The other site is amazingly fast. Is that because there are not a lot of pictures there? Will it slow down noticeably as we hit it initially with all the photos here and then continue to add to it?

I rarely have problems with the speed of the albums because we usually are using a broadband connection of some sort. I do not have a point of reference using any other type. I had some difficulty uploading pictures a week or so ago, but that may have had nothing to do with anything in this discussion.

It sounds from Steve's description of the problem that sooner or later the current gallery will have to be changed. So the process/planning for the change may really be the question. Otherwise we are just going to keep creating more links which we'll lose. Here are some of the questions I think we need to consider presuming the change is going to be made sooner than later.

1. Is the eventual move inevitable? If so, let's do it before we create even more links!

2. Will the other site be as fast when there are significantly more pictures posted?

3. Can we keep the current gallery but lock it for future postings as suggested above at least for a little while (I'm guessing that will be a logistical and possible financial nightmare for Steve).

4. Can all the photos in the current gallery be moved to the new one easily?

5. Are there subcategories on the other site?

6. Can the subcategories work there as they are now or would they each need to be redefined and photo's re-categorized?

7. Is there a way to tell what posts a given photo is linked to in the current site? If so it would give folks a way to decide if they wanted to "re-link" them or not.

8. Is the link name in the gallery similar to the old and would only take changing a few things characters (letters/numbers not folks like Monty and Sapwood :lol: ) to work as opposed to having to copy and paste every link?

I'm sure I have more questions, but I'm confusing myself.

 

[mshel]

Just visited the site and then went to our site and objectively, I don't see any measurable difference. As others have stated, adding a alphabet might speed up getting to one's album but other than that, I like what we already have. I am using roadrunner so I can sympathize with the ones still on dial-up. Been there done that.
As we progress through life, we must remember one idiom, KISS. The more we add, the more Steve has to deal with down the road.

Just my 2 pesos.

MIke

 

[sapwood]

Tough call Steve. It would be a shame to deal with the lost links (our history!), but you can't do the job without the right tools (software). :-( Although you've probably already thought about it . . . can the Photo Gallery be broken down into smaller, more manageable pages (alphabetical or other grouping)???? If not, I like Mike's idea if it's doable.

Would it help if I (we) went through our albums and did some "house cleaning". Undoubtedly some of my pixs could be deleted. And I'm sure we would all being willing to help in anyway possible since we are the ones causing you the headaches :BangHead:

Roger

 

[Splinter]

I just checked out the other site and compared to the photo gallery on this site, IT SCREAMS on my 3MB cable service. If Mike's suggestion on the archive would work I vote to change. I think I would vote to change even if the archive can't be accomplished. I might use the photo gallery more.

 

[SteveColes]

Wow, lots of comments.

Some answers and responses.
1. The speed problem will only get worse as we add new albums, more pictures. And I promise you that sooner or later, the speed problem will be noticed by everyone.

2. It is NOT feasible to put in an Alphabetic index on that home page.

3.It is possible to create subalbums in PhotoPost. Monty, go to your album and click on "My Albums"

4. The speed problem has very little to do with your line speed once you are in broadband. The main problem has to do with each member's computer(thanks to toolferone for letting me invade his house and verify my that)

5. I really:eusa_danc like the idea of archiving the current gallery to perserve links, if we go to another gallery. We don't even have to keep the software, just the files, unless there are a lot of links that don't point directly to the file.
http://www.ncwoodworker.net/gallery/showimage.php?i=4318&c=91
rather than
http://ncwoodworker.net/gallery/files/1/2RigidSCMS.jpg
Mike Davis that was a great idea, I love you:gar-Lo: :lol:

6. Monty's idea trying to use the same directory structure, is a good thing. But that is a no go.

7. Using photopost or the other Gallery I am thinking about, the staff would never have to create another album. Uploading the first picture would create the album.

I think I have responsed to everything so far.

 

[SteveColes]

Would it help if I (we) went through our albums and did some "house cleaning". Undoubtedly some of my pixs could be deleted. And I'm sure we would all being willing to help in anyway possible since we are the ones causing you the headaches :BangHead:

Roger

A cleanup is always useful, but wouldn't help the issue.

 

[SteveColes]

Some answers

The other site is amazingly fast. Is that because there are not a lot of pictures there? Will it slow down noticeably as we hit it initially with all the photos here and then continue to add to it?

I rarely have problems with the speed of the albums because we usually are using a broadband connection of some sort. I do not have a point of reference using any other type. I had some difficulty uploading pictures a week or so ago, but that may have had nothing to do with anything in this discussion.

It sounds from Steve's description of the problem that sooner or later the current gallery will have to be changed. So the process/planning for the change may really be the question. Otherwise we are just going to keep creating more links which we'll lose. Here are some of the questions I think we need to consider presuming the change is going to be made sooner than later.

1. Is the eventual move inevitable? If so, let's do it before we create even more links Don't know, but I am sure as we continue to grow, eventually everyone will see a difference

2. Will the other site be as fast when there are significantly more pictures posted? Probably, but no guarantees. But at least I will have someone to complain to.

3. Can we keep the current gallery but lock it for future postings as suggested above at least for a little while (I'm guessing that will be a logistical and possible financial nightmare for Steve). Unless there is a sudden growth spurt of albums and pictures, say 4 times what it is now, then we could keep the archive for at least a year and maybe forever.

4. Can all the photos in the current gallery be moved to the new one easily? Easy? No. But it can be done. And that's my job and any admins or Mods that would want to help

5. Are there subcategories on the other site? Yes, and sub album Heirarchy is easy to create
6. Can the subcategories work there as they are now or would they each need to be redefined and photo's re-categorized? Could be close. Minmal rework after initial setup and import
7. Is there a way to tell what posts a given photo is linked to in the current site? If so it would give folks a way to decide if they wanted to "re-link" them or not. Nope

8. Is the link name in the gallery similar to the old and would only take changing a few things characters (letters/numbers not folks like Monty and Sapwood :lol: ) to work as opposed to having to copy and paste every link? For PhotoPost yes. For the other Gallery under consideration, probably not

I'm sure I have more questions, but I'm confusing myself.

 

[SteveColes]

A few more things:
Let me restate that the speed of your connection is NOT the cause of the slowness.

PhotoPost on the site was used as an example just to show how good software can make a great difference. It is not the choice.

No matter what Gallery we use, there will be differences, some good, some bad, and some just different.

 

[Joe Scharle]

significant response difference!