SummitPost.org

mvs wrote:So Bob is there still a problem? Can we, a year later, publish the article for the bulk uploader for wider circulation? My recollection was that the reasons cited for supression were more numerous, and yet less concrete, than what you describe above. That may be how the charge of "elves against progress" could gain traction in my own mind, anyway.

I don't have the best of memories, so I can't say if there were more objections or not. I don't remember any. I certainly had/have none myself. And I can't speak for the other elves about front page objections/choices. I have never actually put *anything* on the front page and have left that activity to the others. But I tell you what - give me a minute and I'll see if can figure out how to put you on the front page. If you don't see anything soon, it means my attempt was (yet again) a miserable failure.

...but the elves used their power to deny letting this article ever get on the front page...

That was me and not "the elves". There were reasons and I'm pretty sure I used pretty similar words as Bob wrote previously on this thread. And I don't believe that I ever said "Josh wouldn't want it". As far as I remember we had a polite email discussion about it and now I see you filing complaints because you're frustrated.

Well, welcome to the club!

Do you think it is fun to have you guys accusing us of being against progress. Bob pointed it out and you all know it as well: Josh and Ryle don't bother with the site and have been absent for years now. They are the only ones to grant any such requests but every try to reach them via the usual communication channels were fruitless. Matt is doing the best he can but he, too has other things to worry about. We all make our money elsewhere.

Now talk about frustration!

But nobody ever listens anyway. And the little they listen to they soon forget.

Gangolf Haub wrote:blah, blah, blah, blah

But nobody ever listens anyway. And the little they listen to they soon forget.

What?

The bulk uploader was extremely helpful in my last two submissions. I like the facts that I can put the captions into the jpg files off line, and have them appear automatically; and that I immediately have a list of the image id tags.

But I don't think SP is in danger of a flood of submitted photos, for the simple reason that the SP interface (not the uploader) still makes the process more difficult than on flickr, picassa, webshots, meetup.com, etc. I've found that people rarely submit lots of photos in bulk, unless the interface is very simple (which usually means "not powerful"), and is hosted by the web page itself.

Perhaps the biggest problem for space is that people tend to upload their originals, as they come right off the camera. I can understand this when the original contains important information about the route; but usually a 1024 x 768 pixel^2 image will convey the needed information.

Perhaps the very difficulty of the submittal process, limits submittals to people who are serious.

Bob Burd wrote:

Gangolf Haub wrote:blah, blah, blah, blah

But nobody ever listens anyway. And the little they listen to they soon forget.

What?

QED

MoapaPk wrote:The bulk uploader was extremely helpful in my last two submissions. I like the facts that I can put the captions into the jpg files off line, and have them appear automatically; and that I immediately have a list of the image id tags.

But I don't think SP is in danger of a flood of submitted photos, for the simple reason that the SP interface (not the uploader) still makes the process more difficult than on flickr, picassa, webshots, meetup.com, etc. I've found that people rarely submit lots of photos in bulk, unless the interface is very simple (which usually means "not powerful"), and is hosted by the web page itself.

Perhaps the biggest problem for space is that people tend to upload their originals, as they come right off the camera. I can understand this when the original contains important information about the route; but usually a 1024 x 768 pixel^2 image will convey the needed information.

Perhaps the very difficulty of the submittal process, limits submittals to people who are serious.

1024 x 768: yes
bulk uploader: I don't see how it makes things faster as you have to fill in the captions anyway. For me the routine described above is much faster as I can see the images which I will place in my TR or mountain page.

Also my version of the bulk uploader always crashes at the end of the upload. I wrote an email to the programmer which never got answered. He is using his power to ignore me!

Now I'm frustrated

Gangolf Haub wrote:
1024 x 768: yes
bulk uploader: I don't see how it makes things faster as you have to fill in the captions anyway.

You can do it offline, and don't have to go back and forth between pages (with your work going into the ether when SP hiccups). Plus, your photos (jpgs) then have those captions embedded in them. Put the captions and titles right in the photos with a jpg editor offline, and the bulk uploader does all the parsing. I make a lot fewer mistakes when I use this process.
Perhaps this isn't a critical feature for people who have simple cations for scenery; but if there is some complex description of routes or geology in the caption, this feature is quite helpful.

MoapaPk wrote:

Gangolf Haub wrote:
1024 x 768: yes
bulk uploader: I don't see how it makes things faster as you have to fill in the captions anyway.

You can do it offline, and don't have to go back and forth between pages (with your work going into the ether when SP hiccups). Plus, your photos (jpgs) then have those captions embedded in them. Put the captions and titles right in the photos with a jpg editor offline, and the bulk uploader does all the parsing. I make a lot fewer mistakes when I use this process.
Perhaps this isn't a critical feature for people who have simple cations for scenery; but if there is some complex description of routes or geology in the caption, this feature is quite helpful.

We all have different ways of working on the site. For me the BU does not speed up the process, rather the other way around. And honestly, I don't see the hiccup issue. As long as I fill the textbox hiccups won't affect me. If there's a hiccup during uploading I simply have to use the browser back button. But what happens if there is a hiccup during upload with the BU? Issue and solution will be similar, I'd suppose.

But, by all means, go on using the BU, if it helps you.

Haha! Okay Gangolf, Bob you guys had me rolling on the floor.

You have payed me back for my disparaging remarks in the meanest way possible: you actually gave me what I wanted. The flood of bugs and requests might never end now. Can you guys ask Josh where he ran away to?

Also, Gangolf, there were some bug fixes regarding a crash of the program at certain points, if you still see that on the latest version let me know again and I'll do my best to restrain my natural urge to ignore you.

Anyway, thanks guys for the vote of confidence. The front page does inspire me to do the work.

Gangolf Haub wrote: But what happens if there is a hiccup during upload with the BU?

Global warming. Or maybe cooling. Anyway, there will be a climate change.

Dingus Milktoast wrote:....

So my diatribe did some good.

DMT

A diatribe for the tribe!!!111



or is the term "tribe" verboten around here:?