Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
vikkyvik wrote:Also, in case no one mentioned this....
Now that there's only one watermark color (light), there's no need to have that menu. It's just another thing we have to select, for no reason now.
vikkyvik wrote:Also, for what it's worth, I uploaded a bunch of shots last night. After getting through a couple of them, I got quite used to the new process. Just REALLY needs a watermark preview, and I'll be pretty happy.
vikkyvik wrote:One thing I forgot to mention: it's actually too bad that the dark watermark went away. We'll see how the light one works now, but in the past, for shots against bright backgrounds, it was all but useless, even at max strength (sure, I could put it over the aircraft, but I don't do that). Would be nice to have a dark option, but limit the opacity to maybe 40%.
airkas1 wrote:I wouldn't hold my breath for a return of the dark watermark. I agree it's useless for a light background, but when people put it right over the fuselage, it does more harm than good in my opinion.
vikkyvik wrote:airkas1 wrote:I've read it could take up to 24h (Los Angeles time) for all indexing and retrofitting to be done.
Are Los Angeles hours longer or shorter than the rest of the world? Could explain why I feel like I'm aging faster than normal....
(sorry, just had to get that in )
Thanks for your continued updates.
airkas1 wrote:len90 wrote:I have the following: 27 in total
Thanks, passed them on.
len90 wrote:Those images never got the copyright bar. Any idea with what happened?
I processed all. I noticed a problem with the group of images in the 27****** range by Gusti that I'm looking into, appears it still has the black copyright bar on the source image from before.
spompert wrote:- I still see the featured photographer on the main page is still not moving. Quite irritating if you ask me.
- I also noticed something new (not sure it`s on the list yet). When there are more than 5 comments on a photo the other comments (sometimes a lot more) are not visible.
- Would also be nice if the caption is being showed higher in the list with info on the detailpage or even in the thumbnails (not sure if this is a good thing).
- No information available about how the Photographers Choice is being made.
- Would be nice to see some view statistics, I can see total views like 32.3K but would be better more detailed like 32.323 and more statistics like views per day, average views, etc (like we had before).
- The notifications in the photosection is not working. So I am not able to see when friends upload or when others comment on one of my photos. This function would be awesome and a great improvement over the old site but unfortunately not working yet.
bombayduck wrote:On the old site a certain photo could be in a number of albums shown at the end of the picture along with the comments of said picture, instead of being in say twenty albums now shows a small fraction of this. I have a picture of a NWA DC10 which was in eighteen plus albums now just showing in four albums.
aal151heavy wrote:- By default, the autocomplete ticks off "No Match Chosen". When there is just one match for both the reg and the location, the default tick should be on the matched reg and location. From my experience, 99% of the time the auto match is correct.
- The upload page is way too long. Just like the photo page, each data field takes up so much space resulting in a lot of scrolling. I know this set up looks a lot nicer on a tablet, but given the majority of the photogs are going to upload via their desktop versus tablet, there is no need to space apart all of the data fields.
- After upload confirmation, there should be a button to quickly go back to upload another shot (like what we had before).
Developers wrote:Quick update to let you know of some minor updates we just pushed out. We're viewing this updates as "experimental" and they may not be permanent so please let us know what you think and please pass on any good feedback from non-Crew users if you'd like!
1) Top 5 Photos slideshow on the home page has been replaced. We are now showing only the thumbnail version of the Top 5 Photos and users will need to click through to the details pages to view higher-quality versions of photos. The thumbnails shown at top of home page are no longer cropped and will appear at original aspect ratio. Also, we are in the process of removing the "Top Photo" ribbon from the #1 photo so that will be gone shortly.
2) Thumbnails in the sidebar of all pages are no longer cropped, original aspect ratio is respected.
3) The default search results page has been switched to the detail view which uses uncropped photos. The "card" view is now the secondary search result layout.
airkas1 wrote:Developers wrote:Quick update to let you know of some minor updates we just pushed out. We're viewing this updates as "experimental" and they may not be permanent so please let us know what you think and please pass on any good feedback from non-Crew users if you'd like!
1) Top 5 Photos slideshow on the home page has been replaced. We are now showing only the thumbnail version of the Top 5 Photos and users will need to click through to the details pages to view higher-quality versions of photos. The thumbnails shown at top of home page are no longer cropped and will appear at original aspect ratio. Also, we are in the process of removing the "Top Photo" ribbon from the #1 photo so that will be gone shortly.
2) Thumbnails in the sidebar of all pages are no longer cropped, original aspect ratio is respected.
3) The default search results page has been switched to the detail view which uses uncropped photos. The "card" view is now the secondary search result layout.
If you're willing and able, we'd love to hear your thoughts on all 3.
JKPhotos wrote:Another point I noticed this morning.
When I access the mobile site on my smartphone and check out my personal (or anyone elses) gallery there is now quite some Information underneath a shot. The info bracket is 2-3 times larger than the shot, which is quite confusing. Until yesterday the info was more compromised (and better). Is this due to the change of Nr. 3?
Again I'd generally appreciate if the infos underneath a shot would get shortened, still some useless information there and I think the caption should be placed higher.
spompert wrote:The top 5 is much better now! Personally I prefer the cardview of photos instead of detailview. It think viewing detailview takes to much space and the info about the photographer is not very interesting. I prefer the cardview as default but than with caption included.
airkas1 wrote:Developers wrote:Quick update to let you know of some minor updates we just pushed out. We're viewing this updates as "experimental" and they may not be permanent so please let us know what you think and please pass on any good feedback from non-Crew users if you'd like!
1) Top 5 Photos slideshow on the home page has been replaced. We are now showing only the thumbnail version of the Top 5 Photos and users will need to click through to the details pages to view higher-quality versions of photos. The thumbnails shown at top of home page are no longer cropped and will appear at original aspect ratio. Also, we are in the process of removing the "Top Photo" ribbon from the #1 photo so that will be gone shortly.
2) Thumbnails in the sidebar of all pages are no longer cropped, original aspect ratio is respected.
3) The default search results page has been switched to the detail view which uses uncropped photos. The "card" view is now the secondary search result layout.
If you're willing and able, we'd love to hear your thoughts on all 3.
I would like to see the specific aircraft version in the photo details instead of generic/basic aircraft type.
JKPhotos wrote:What happened now?
In the gallery thumbnail are extremly small now?! Not everything on the old site was better, the new larger thumbnail were a great improvement, I mean monitor resolutions have evolveld.
I can only hope that this is a mistake, as this would be a huge step backwards. This size maybe suited for 1.280 px screens, but hey we're not in 2005 anymore.
View at 100% on a 1.920px screen. Sorry for my harsh words, but you can only be kidding. I really hope this happened by mistake.
kulverstukas wrote:JKPhotos wrote:What happened now?
In the gallery thumbnail are extremly small now?! Not everything on the old site was better, the new larger thumbnail were a great improvement, I mean monitor resolutions have evolveld.
I can only hope that this is a mistake, as this would be a huge step backwards. This size maybe suited for 1.280 px screens, but hey we're not in 2005 anymore.
View at 100% on a 1.920px screen. Sorry for my harsh words, but you can only be kidding. I really hope this happened by mistake.
New site design with tiles are dynamical now (intention to make one site for both desktops and mobile devices with different screen resolutions and orientations). Try to resize browser window on your desktop (change width) and look what's happens. Last time I checked thumbnail sizes was dynamical too, so it's just bad implementation and lack of testing on some screen sizes/resolution which leads to such funny layouts as 100px thumbnail with 1900px wide caption.
garry wrote:It seems from my recent experience that images are being re-sized & compressed upon upload. I added 5 each set at 1024px on the longest side yet they were all interpolated to 1280px on longest side.
It also seems the opportunity to remove the awful compression applied at upload has been missed in the redevelopment of the site - still around 40% of the original upload.
bombayduck wrote:I have just noticed at the bottom of certain pictures, which used to show which albums of said picture was in, this is missing all together now. The comments are still there although they are missing some comments as opposed to the old site, which showed more.
miamivice wrote:Update: now it seems to be back all ok! All the photos are visible.
solro wrote:After the latest update the site switches to "mobile mode" when the size of the window is below aprox. 1400px. So this make a.net homepage unusable (and really crappy) on my 1368px laptop.
I appreciate the job of the developers and I have to congralute them for making the page so adaptive, but I think a "Web/Mobile" version button is needed.