-
Posts
-
the keyword delete all has been there from the beginning — I confirmed it over several versions
when testing I found a keyword that had only a few uses, then used batch to try to delete from several of them -0 it alwas deleted the entire keyword (same for category)
this may have already hit other people because it was only by chance that I discovered it — the process doesn’t say which images are updated, so others may think they’ve deleted the keyword from only a few images, but actually deleted from all
also, any progress on getting the image desc to use only ONE form of exif/iptc info, rather than generating double or triple?@leo wrote:
Tonight when I’m working in the translation accomodation, I’ll see whats happening that causes a resize during batch-processing. I might have knocked something out of order in previous changes.
PE – if things are set up you should be able to go through each page of your portfolio, select all, and generate previews. Having an option to create PE previews on-upload would be something I could implement.
Are you saying the PE implementation is giving you problems? Some people seem to have it, and others don’t. Talking with Justin, I was told the only problem he has is when he fetches updates from a Symbio-site during it’s processing time (generating sitemaps, etc)
this is why we should get a fully stable version done before adding such major changes as translation – all it takes is a missed quote to crash and some of text strings may not be fully tested, so the crash can come in the future when it won’t be I mmediately clear it’s to the translation
also, is t5here a reason you still u se the 9.9.9 version numbering? rather than using A.B.C where A is a major rewrite and B is a significant change? i’, sur when people see a 2.9 going to a 3.0 they expect major changes and moving from 3.01 to 3.2.2 in a week implies a very unstable or fast changing program when in fact there have only been minor changes. it’s part of giving symbio a more professional look@cascoly wrote:
the keyword delete all has been there from the beginning — I confirmed it over several versions
when testing I found a keyword that had only a few uses, then used batch to try to delete from several of them -0 it alwas deleted the entire keyword (same for category)
I have a test site and added 16 images to it. I added one keyword to all the images and a different one to 6. I then used the batch editor to delete one or both of those keywords from selected images. I checked that the remaining images kept their keywords both by doing a new search in the batch editor and by visually inspecting the image pages.
Whatever the bug is, there’s some other factor required to make it happen
I did notice some very odd behavior, however.
I removed selected keywords that had been read from IPTC when the image was uploaded from a few images. In one case I removed all an image’s keywords. When I did a batch editor search for a removed keyword, the images that no longer had that keyword still showed up!
If I went to the site to search for the missing keyword (and I picked one, horizontal, that doesn’t show up in the description or title) the images were found even though the keyword was gone – and that included the image that had no keywords at all.
So, the keywords added with the batch editor were subtracted as expected (and the images were no longer found by the batch editor or a search on the site). But keywords that had been there when the image was uploaded acted for search purposes as if they were still there, although they did not show up on the image page if you looked at it.
LEO – any fix for the batch re-processor making all images the same size?
View my portfolio at THPStock Direct via Microstock Man. I also do Web Design & Graphic Design.
@joannsnover wrote:
@cascoly wrote:
the keyword delete all has been there from the beginning — I confirmed it over several versions
when testing I found a keyword that had only a few uses, then used batch to try to delete from several of them -0 it alwas deleted the entire keyword (same for category)
I have a test site and added 16 images to it. I added one keyword to all the images and a different one to 6. I then used the batch editor to delete one or both of those keywords from selected images. I checked that the remaining images kept their keywords both by doing a new search in the batch editor and by visually inspecting the image pages.
Whatever the bug is, there’s some other factor required to make it happen
I did notice some very odd behavior, however.
I removed selected keywords that had been read from IPTC when the image was uploaded from a few images. In one case I removed all an image’s keywords. When I did a batch editor search for a removed keyword, the images that no longer had that keyword still showed up!
If I went to the site to search for the missing keyword (and I picked one, horizontal, that doesn’t show up in the description or title) the images were found even though the keyword was gone – and that included the image that had no keywords at all.
So, the keywords added with the batch editor were subtracted as expected (and the images were no longer found by the batch editor or a search on the site). But keywords that had been there when the image was uploaded acted for search purposes as if they were still there, although they did not show up on the image page if you looked at it.
Thanks for PMing me. I would have missed this otherwise! Very good — I’m glad to have someone find this. I couldn’t reproduce it. Even still, I’m going to have to read your post about 10 times to see what exactly you did – I still don’t get it! I’ll be working on this today.
Sorry if it’s not clear.
To see this bug you’ll need some images that have existing keywords – not ones you added in the batch editor.
I think, but I didn’t test this out, that they need to have been read in when the image was originally processed, but it’s possible you could add them by editing an image from the Ladybird menu and adding keywords there.
I’ve been stumbling on this problem for a while, trying to see what people are referring to. Like you say, I’ll have to fiddle with it to get a true handle on it. I’m just glad to have found it!
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.