Topic: POLL: Was Pix01.com worth doing? (Read 4199 times)

JimH · « **on:** January 29, 2008, 06:17:07 pm »

A few days ago, I asked about whether you'd use a free web page if we offered it:

http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=44708.0

1/3 said probably or yes. 1/3 said maybe. 1/3 said they thought we were spinning our wheels trying to compete with Facebook.

I'm interested in your opinion on Pix01.com, a similar thing we did with photo sharing. Your opinion is highly valued, maybe even over-rated. Just kidding.

KingSparta · « **Reply #1 on:** January 29, 2008, 06:23:32 pm »

I think "Facebook" is over rated

park · « **Reply #2 on:** January 29, 2008, 07:04:46 pm »

I think it was defnitely worthwhile. From the user pov, we get free image hosting with no strings. Flikr is good for it's community features but useless as a free service due to the limitations it puts on non paying members. Facebook also excels in it's community features (photo albums showing up in your friends news feed), but the images are small, and there's no slideshow.

MC offers a completely user customizable interface , larger resolution, and a built in slideshow. If it were combined with Jim's idea for more community oriented pages, then it'd be even better. We'd have our own "page" with a list of all of our albums. Friends and family would be able to browse our albums without us having to send them the urls for each each one.

I heard that the big thing for 2008 will be portability. Maybe something to do with the openID thing. So rather than trying to compete with already established community sites, why not just build lots of (openID based) widget type things, that people can put on any of the social networking sites. And then as bonus, give MC users their own page as well, with all the MC created widgets already loaded onto it.

glynor · « **Reply #3 on:** January 29, 2008, 07:46:30 pm »

I, personally, would use the Pix01 site if the web UI was "slickr and more like Flickr". That said, I still think it was worth doing, adds a valuable feature to MC, and is probably great for many, many users who have less demanding needs of the system.

My concerns over Pix01 are essentially relating to the online UI. Specifically from both an "organizing/uploading/managing" point of view (including making, managing, and organizing sets of pictures) and from a "viewing, browsing, and navigating" point of view (including the features to browse other user's pictures, keywords, grouping, etc, etc, etc). From inside MC, it works great. However, the site is obviously designed to be used only in relation to MC. If Pix01 was closer to Flickr, I would probably move quickly to it. However it clearly isn't currently.

I should mention... I'm a paying Flickr user (for more than one year), and I use my account fairly heavily.

Link · « **Reply #4 on:** January 29, 2008, 07:46:45 pm »

Didn't offer much that seemed to dry me away from Picasa.....

darichman · « **Reply #5 on:** January 29, 2008, 08:04:56 pm »

In all honesty, if pix01 were to stand with it's current functionality and no improvements to the interface/functionality, then I would say it wasn't worth it - there is really no reason for me to use it over picasa or flickr. It's not bad, it's just missing a lot that the others can offer.

From an old post (http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=43888.msg301182#msg301182) but probably relevant here...

Web Integration
Pix01: I like Pix01. With a bit of love and care it could be something great... there are a few things missing though which always lead me back to Picasa Web Galleries.
-- I think we should be aiming for more integration here. MC should know which photos I've uploaded to my web gallery (not just a playlist thing) and I should be able to add to or change photos without replacing the whole album. I know this is hard, but it is important.
-- A bit more customisability to the site itself: allow me to organise my albums (by date, by name, with categories etc etc) and reorder my photos, and allow me to view the tags of the files (ala Picasa) and share tags with friends
-- Have an option to share private galleries with other users, and add the ability to comment on photos (ala Picasa)
-- Allow me to "Download Entire Album" (ala Picasa)
-- Add some cool of gimmicky functionality like face tagging (ala facebook), better if this is done from the program before upload

Facebook: iPhoto has this sorted - copy them!! In iPhoto you can fill in all the tags from the program and better yet, fill in the "Face" frames before you upload. With the power of it's numerous fields, MC is in a prime position to mirror this or beat it. I want to be able to bring up the photo, bring up the "frame" and select the name from my [People] field. There are open source solutions for this so it's definitely not impossible to do this. Check out: http://code.google.com/p/fb-photo-uploader/ (it's under GNU General Public License)

Picasa: Why not? Complete support for the major web galleries would please everyone

benn600 · « **Reply #6 on:** January 29, 2008, 08:47:34 pm »

I think it could be much more useful. My major issue is that too many people are just not on top of things enough to actually take pictures at an event, get them from their camera, import them, upload them, and then get the link to tons of people.

Personally I try to do this but in my case, I would definitely rather host the stuff myself since I have my own server anyway.

I personally don't care much but am very glad that the functionality is there. I can see it being useful eventually. From MC's perspective I think it is a must, though. The major issue is multiple sites but even with only one site, I'm never impressed. Most photo sites are worthless because I always want the full resolution available--of course for most users, they don't even know what that means so I am probably asking more than I need to. I do have some family members heavily involved with photos (talking full-time+ number of hours spent organizing photos for several major projects) and she just started using the .Mac photo galleries.

rjm · « **Reply #7 on:** January 29, 2008, 11:42:58 pm »

I was initially enthusiastic about having a place to put MC screenshots for discussion on this forum. I tried it about 3 times, carefully following the instructions for posting a screenshot, and every time it did not work so I gave up and have not tried again.

marko · « **Reply #8 on:** January 30, 2008, 01:03:35 am »

I'd like to see ratings, view counts and ability for viewers to leave comments.

I really like how simple it is.
I really like the "pix01 playlist group" that gets created automatically.

definitely worth it.
definitely needs more work, presentation-wise.

-marko.

gappie · « **Reply #9 on:** January 30, 2008, 01:49:03 am »

the question makes me sad.

"Is Pix01.com worth doing?"

i like pix01. a nice and very easy way to share some pix with other people. and nicely integrated into mc.

robydago · « **Reply #10 on:** January 30, 2008, 02:23:45 am »

if i remember correctly there's a limit on the size and\or numbers of photos you can upload

if so, it would be better if the default limit was higher and higher limits (up to unlimited?) could be bought

Mr ChriZ · « **Reply #11 on:** January 30, 2008, 03:23:55 am »

I like Pix01 for it's high res's etc.
Although I agree with Glynor on the slicker bit.
It's feels clumsy to use. Other than facebook, I've little
to compare it to however.

MrHaugen · « **Reply #12 on:** January 30, 2008, 03:29:00 am »

I voted Definitely.
Like to have the option to upload to my own web gallery directly from MC.
As many others point out though; there have to be done things with it's presentation.
Slideshow, comments, and an overall design upgrade.

johnnyboy · « **Reply #13 on:** January 30, 2008, 06:00:59 am »

To me I feel like MC's strongest point and feature is its ability to tag and organise media.
Pix01 doesn't seem to play on this at all or try and carry this theme online at all.

If you want a proper site and want to make it especially useful then allow all the tags from the media to be uploaded to it and saved into a DB and allow users to have their own libraries specific to their user name that can be browsed and searched.
Give each user a home page that lists all their albums and most importantly, that is laid out and designed to be extremely aesthetically pleasing - if I want to share my photos I want it to look good, I want everyone who looks at them to be impressed with how nice an album I have laid out.
Go a step further and allow me to set permission levels on albums (everyone can see, username/password required to see (one we set for the album and provide to people to view it with), etc).

)p( · « **Reply #14 on:** January 30, 2008, 06:12:53 am »

I like the close integration with mc aspect of it. But it still needs a lot of work to make me give up my flickr account.

In an ideal world pix01 would be able to synchronize effortless with mc and be able to store the original images if flagged that way. (Just add a pxc01 synchronize tag and do the work in the background!) Add a html based webpage with the ability to browse the relevant image and video related tags. With that in place I would close my flickr account immediately and would be willing to pay a subscription fee.

peter

dcwebman · « **Reply #15 on:** January 30, 2008, 07:22:34 am »

Definitely. I wasn't sure at first because I have multiple websites where I post photos so I have never had a need to look at the other image hosting sites. Hence I don't have any others to compare against but I do know I wouldn't pay for any accounts. When there are some images that I want to share quickly, Pix01 makes it really easy. And converting video is a plus. But like others have said, there are improvements that could be made.

darichman · « **Reply #16 on:** January 30, 2008, 07:42:49 am »

I'd be really really happy with everything johnnyboy says.

Araj · « **Reply #17 on:** January 30, 2008, 07:56:13 am »

I will use it a lot more - eventually

Every time I start sorting my photos out I bump into more stuff in my music that needs doing...

glynor · « **Reply #18 on:** January 30, 2008, 09:29:11 am »

Quote from: johnnyboy on January 30, 2008, 06:00:59 am

To me I feel like MC's strongest point and feature is its ability to tag and organise media.
Pix01 doesn't seem to play on this at all or try and carry this theme online at all.

If you want a proper site and want to make it especially useful then allow all the tags from the media to be uploaded to it and saved into a DB and allow users to have their own libraries specific to their user name that can be browsed and searched.
Give each user a home page that lists all their albums and most importantly, that is laid out and designed to be extremely aesthetically pleasing - if I want to share my photos I want it to look good, I want everyone who looks at them to be impressed with how nice an album I have laid out.
Go a step further and allow me to set permission levels on albums (everyone can see, username/password required to see (one we set for the album and provide to people to view it with), etc).

+++

DarkPenguin · « **Reply #19 on:** January 30, 2008, 10:12:05 am »

Just a quick bit of history. The idea behind the implementation of Pix01 was that the heavy lifting would be done in gallery creation and not in the serving of the gallery. So a gallery would be completely baked upon creation and we would provide a nice space for the files. We keep the playlist of the gallery around so one can recreate it if they add photos or otherwise wish to modify it. However a gallery is the smallest item we work with.

A user can quickly put up a gallery with little fuss. But if they want to manage that gallery after the fact it is a little like buying a new car to get new tires. Basically a forklift upgrade. (Or totemotor upgrade.)

So for those who do static galleries it is probably fine. For those with dynamic galleries it is missing capabilities.

gappie · « **Reply #20 on:** January 30, 2008, 10:15:38 am »

Quote from: johnnyboy on January 30, 2008, 06:00:59 am

To me I feel like MC's strongest point and feature is its ability to tag and organise media.
Pix01 doesn't seem to play on this at all or try and carry this theme online at all.

If you want a proper site and want to make it especially useful then allow all the tags from the media to be uploaded to it and saved into a DB and allow users to have their own libraries specific to their user name that can be browsed and searched.
Give each user a home page that lists all their albums and most importantly, that is laid out and designed to be extremely aesthetically pleasing - if I want to share my photos I want it to look good, I want everyone who looks at them to be impressed with how nice an album I have laid out.
Go a step further and allow me to set permission levels on albums (everyone can see, username/password required to see (one we set for the album and provide to people to view it with), etc).

i actually hoped that the webpage idea, would be going in that direction.

benn600 · « **Reply #21 on:** January 30, 2008, 10:58:44 am »

Yea, I don't like how it is based on .html files instead of a simple php script that would allow simpler galleries. It means tons of files on your end, too. All those HTML files if I'm not mistaken. in addition to the photos.

DarkPenguin · « **Reply #22 on:** January 30, 2008, 11:08:18 am »

Current templates have 3 html files. But at least 2 thumbs per image. Course those templates are javascript based. So.................. that's another +-.

glynor · « **Reply #23 on:** January 30, 2008, 11:08:49 am »

Quote from: DarkPenguin on January 30, 2008, 10:12:05 am

Just a quick bit of history. The idea behind the implementation of Pix01 was that the heavy lifting would be done in gallery creation and not in the serving of the gallery. So a gallery would be completely baked upon creation and we would provide a nice space for the files. We keep the playlist of the gallery around so one can recreate it if they add photos or otherwise wish to modify it. However a gallery is the smallest item we work with.

A user can quickly put up a gallery with little fuss. But if they want to manage that gallery after the fact it is a little like buying a new car to get new tires. Basically a forklift upgrade. (Or totemotor upgrade.)

So for those who do static galleries it is probably fine. For those with dynamic galleries it is missing capabilities.

Exactly. And I don't think this is a huge issue, but some very basic tools need to be available. You shouldn't need to "reinvent the wheel" in order to add a picture to more than one gallery, for example (or add a comment or keyword). I understand the desire to have it MC UI "centric". It doesn't need as many organizational tools as Flickr exposed via the web interface, but it needs more than none.

What it really needs though is the browsing and community improvements. As others said... User home pages (ala Flickr). Ability to browse other user's pictures (via user, via keyword, via groups of keywords). Community-driven features. Comments. Groups of "friends" (so that my pictures are linked to my mom's pictures and my friend Anthony's pictures and my aunt Carol's pictures). Searching. I should be able to search for "gappie" or "screenshot" and find stuff that I want to check out.

And the "browsing" UI should be more dynamic (and PHP driven, I agree Benn). I like how Flickr has the "photo" page (with the different versions, comments, and the ability to view details about the picture). Each "gallery" should be a collection of these photo pages, with the ability to view the whole gallery of thumbnails, watch fancy slideshows (flash ones that dim the screen and fade the pictures), etc. Each user should be able to have multiple galleries.

glynor · « **Reply #24 on:** January 30, 2008, 11:13:05 am »

Quote from: glynor on January 30, 2008, 11:08:49 am

Exactly. And I don't think this is a huge issue, but some very basic tools need to be available. You shouldn't need to "reinvent the wheel" in order to add a picture to more than one gallery, for example (or add a comment or keyword). I understand the desire to have it MC UI "centric". It doesn't need as many organizational tools as Flickr exposed via the web interface, but it needs more than none.

Perhaps the answer is to somehow make the galleries "live". Have MC's UI "know" what you have posted to Pix01, the contents of galleries, and have it able to manage and "re-jigger" them from inside MC's UI (rather than building a web interface for this). Have it maintain links between your local assets, and the "published" versions on Pix01.

So if you add a keyword to a published asset in MC, it automatically "syncs" this new keyword back out to Pix01. If you add the picture to a different "Album", then it switches it to a different "Gallery"....

Of course, you'd still need to be able to choose what pictures are published and whatnot, but have this relationship remain dynamic rather than "shoot it out to the web and abandon it".

That, and someone mentioned permissions and user management. Build that into the "community" features. Allow you to set one or all of your "galleries" to private, so that only specified "friends" can see and view the pictures. It'd be even better if you had a few layers of permissons... View permissions (low-res and slideshow only), download permissions (for high-res copies), etc.

JimH · « **Reply #25 on:** January 30, 2008, 11:54:39 am »

Quote from: gappie on January 30, 2008, 10:15:38 am

i actually hoped that the webpage idea, would be going in that direction.

You're correct, at least in direction.

dcwebman · « **Reply #26 on:** January 31, 2008, 08:18:39 am »

Quote from: glynor on January 30, 2008, 11:13:05 am

Perhaps the answer is to somehow make the galleries "live". Have MC's UI "know" what you have posted to Pix01, the contents of galleries, and have it able to manage and "re-jigger" them from inside MC's UI (rather than building a web interface for this). Have it maintain links between your local assets, and the "published" versions on Pix01.

So if you add a keyword to a published asset in MC, it automatically "syncs" this new keyword back out to Pix01. If you add the picture to a different "Album", then it switches it to a different "Gallery"....

The "live" concept is what I was hoping way back with just a simple example. You get an email with a short URL for your gallery. MC should be able to know what that is and then add it to the Notes section of the Playlist it creates in MC. If I need to send someone the URL, I should be able to look in MC to get it instead of having to log into Pix01 and get it there.

Going more live is even better and I especially like the syncing suggestion. For example, I have a gallery out there that has a number of photos in it. In fact, I had to make it two galleries because there were too many in the one. That meant it took a while to create the gallery and then upload it. I need to change/add some captions to a few photos in that gallery but I've been avoiding it just because of the time it's going to take to do it again. Yeah, it's automated but I still need to schedule it for sometime when I don't want to use the computer and then let it run.

robydago · « **Reply #27 on:** February 26, 2008, 03:06:47 am »

i think it was worth doing! but jriver should keep improving it...

it's a really good start, but i'm still hoping to see more features added and limits upgraded or removed (60 photos per gallery is way too little for me)

id' pay (not too much...

...) for unlimited storage, https authentication AND access to photos, customizable pix01 personal homepage, etc.

also, jriver could add something I haven't seen in any photo sharing site I tested (but i must admit i tested only a few....): uploading photos independently from galleries; in that way I could use the same photos in all the galleries I want to create, without having to upload the same photos many times. In other words, a "gallery" would be just a "playlist" of content i uploaded on the pix01 server.

thanks again for a great program!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mr ChriZ · « **Reply #28 on:** February 26, 2008, 03:52:41 am »

I find the images very slow to show up.
I don't mind if I've clicked a large full res image,
but for the thumbnails it's slightly annoying seeing the red x.

[Update]
This seems to depend in part on the template...
Take a look at this
http://www.pix01.com/gallery/54D3DA93-6788-4510-BC5C-C2AE5992EC3A/Fairys_at_the_bottom_of_the_garden/

That takes a good 7 seconds or so to show up here

Comparitively my Africa ones show up much quicker
http://www.pix01.com/gallery/54D3DA93-6788-4510-BC5C-C2AE5992EC3A/Africa_Prints/

Also the Africa one is much quicker less than a second to show up the image and also nicer to navigate.

I think the new template just feels weird and cumbersumb, with it's scrolly thing...
and you can't just click a photo to go to full screen mode anymore.

newsposter · « **Reply #29 on:** February 26, 2008, 04:02:08 am »

JR could always 'rebrand' a JR-specific version of an already established photo sharing/printing web site.

I personally use Kodak ProPass for my work. I've seen other photogs put their own presentation layer over the top of the Kodak offering. I'm sure that there are others. But with the number of photo sharing web sites that have gone under in the past 4 years it would be a good idea to stick with someone established and big enough to weather the storms of ecommerce and social networking.

robydago · « **Reply #30 on:** February 26, 2008, 04:10:16 am »

Quote from: newsposter on February 26, 2008, 04:02:08 am

it would be a good idea to stick with someone established and big enough to weather the storms of ecommerce and social networking.

that's why I'd stick with JRiver!

INTERACT FORUM

Poll

We added a free photo site that MC uploads to a while back. Should we have done it?

Author Topic: POLL: Was Pix01.com worth doing? (Read 4199 times)