Author Topic: Another software mess? (Read 7966 times)

madelaide · « **on:** February 20, 2011, 14:02 »

I used to put, in the description field, links to images in a series, using their thumbnail filenames. Now these filenames are not thumbnails anymore, but 285×380 images. Example:
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=5040660

This looks like a mess!

In this particular case, the images look almost unwatermarked, but this is a previous issue, I believe.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #1 on:** February 20, 2011, 14:26 »

On the bright side there's no way a buyer could possibly miss your series.

ShadySue · « **Reply #2 on:** February 20, 2011, 15:09 »

I don't know how you're doing the thums, but the generator I use lets you choose small or large (size of yours) thums.
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/istockphoto/ubbgen.html

madelaide · « **Reply #3 on:** February 20, 2011, 15:25 »

I used the thumbnails that I see when I browse my portfolio, then used a very simple UBB code. The syntax they are using for the thumnails is now different and caused this mess.

ShadySue · « **Reply #4 on:** February 20, 2011, 15:38 »

Quote from: madelaide on February 20, 2011, 15:25

I used the thumbnails that I see when I browse my portfolio, then used a very simple UBB code. The syntax they are using for the thumnails is now different and caused this mess.

Oh, I think I read about the UBB change.
Drives me nuts. On my blog page, I can't seem to close the spaces between my banners, which looks silly. I was back in last night fiddling about, but the spaces reappear every time.

louoates · « **Reply #5 on:** February 20, 2011, 18:32 »

Why the surprise? IS has done about everything possible to make uploading onerous. Even after other sites, years ago, have shown how easy it could be.

caspixel · « **Reply #6 on:** February 20, 2011, 19:05 »

Quote from: louoates on February 20, 2011, 18:32

Why the surprise? IS has done about everything possible to make uploading onerous. Even after other sites, years ago, have shown how easy it could be.

Not just uploading either. Now that I have been searching on other sites, I see how slow the search is on iStock. Thumbs take forever to load and their lightboxing images takes forever. on DT, I just click. Bam. Image added. With iStock, you have to wait for the pop-up, pick your lightbox for almost each image - or at least each new search (I can imagine how onerous that must be for people with hundreds of lightboxes) and then wait for several seconds to get back to you search while the lightbox code finishes whatever it needs to do.

michaeldb · « **Reply #7 on:** February 20, 2011, 21:11 »

Quote from: louoates on February 20, 2011, 18:32

Why the surprise? IS has done about everything possible to make uploading onerous. Even after other sites, years ago, have shown how easy it could be.

+1

travelstock · « **Reply #8 on:** February 21, 2011, 01:53 »

Why not just use Deepmeta to create the thumbnail links?

qwerty · « **Reply #9 on:** February 21, 2011, 02:27 »

madelaide · « **Reply #10 on:** February 21, 2011, 04:56 »

Quote from: holgs on February 21, 2011, 01:53

Why not just use Deepmeta to create the thumbnail links?

I'm not creating anything, I've had these thumbnails there for years and now IS messed them up.

Gannet77 · « **Reply #11 on:** February 21, 2011, 06:13 »

Quote from: madelaide on February 21, 2011, 04:56

Quote from: holgs on February 21, 2011, 01:53
Why not just use Deepmeta to create the thumbnail links?
I'm not creating anything, I've had these thumbnails there for years and now IS messed them up.

Odd... I haven't noticed any of mine being affected.

Is it all your thumbnails on all your images, or just that one?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #12 on:** February 21, 2011, 09:15 »

Quote from: madelaide on February 20, 2011, 14:02

I used to put, in the description field, links to images in a series, using their thumbnail filenames. Now these filenames are not thumbnails anymore, but 285×380 images. Example:
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=5040660

This looks like a mess!

In this particular case, the images look almost unwatermarked, but this is a previous issue, I believe.

Instead of using a link to a jpg, it looks like you've used a directory link:
http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/4548303

Maybe they are now putting size 2 thumbs in there.

What does your UBB say?

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #13 on:** February 21, 2011, 12:50 »

What I see for the link in your images is one to the image page, not to JPEG - e.g. http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=4548303

If you use a form I have been for ages (which they don't generate any more, but fortunately so far have continued to honor) you get to pick the size:

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve.php?id=12054451&size=1

You can see an example here.

I don't use DeepMeta to generate my links as I want the link to be to a lightbox, but to show a selection of images, something it doesn't do, but UBB does.

The unfortunate truth is that without a batch editing tool like DeepMeta to make changes a bit less work, we're at the mercy of iStock if they choose to break something that worked in the past. I guess I'll switch to DeepMeta when they break the form I use in UBB (but so far it's lasted since 2005)

madelaide · « **Reply #14 on:** February 21, 2011, 15:59 »

I used to browse my portfolio, right-click an image and get its link (FF has this option, IE doesn't). Indeed, these links didn't end in .jpg, yet they provided a thumbnail - I guess that's why they had "thumbview" in the URL.

Code: [Select]

See all the images in this series: 
[url=http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=2363988][img]http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/2363988[/img][/url] [url=http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=2364051][img]http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/2364051[/img][/url] [url=http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=4333634][img]http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/4333634[/img][/url]

The fact is: these links don't provide thumbnails anymore, and I certainly won't redo everything.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #15 on:** February 21, 2011, 16:05 »

Well, I guess you're out of luck then.

Megastock · « **Reply #16 on:** February 21, 2011, 22:54 »

Quote from: madelaide on February 21, 2011, 15:59

I used to browse my portfolio, right-click an image and get its link (FF has this option, IE doesn't).

Can't you just right-click in IE and go to properties to get the link?

madelaide · « **Reply #17 on:** February 22, 2011, 04:59 »

Quote from: Megastock on February 21, 2011, 22:54

Quote from: madelaide on February 21, 2011, 15:59
I used to browse my portfolio, right-click an image and get its link (FF has this option, IE doesn't).

Can't you just right-click in IE and go to properties to get the link?

Yes, but why do that in IE if I can do that in FF with just one click?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Another software mess? (Read 7966 times)

madelaide

PaulieWalnuts

ShadySue

madelaide

ShadySue

louoates

caspixel

michaeldb

travelstock

qwerty

madelaide

Gannet77

Sean Locke Photography

Jo Ann Snover

madelaide

Sean Locke Photography

Megastock

madelaide

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors