New picture system

I just pushed my new profile-pictures system.

Note: Do not submit bug reports here! Bug reports are really boring the moment they're made, and they clog up non-bug discussion. I've created a topic just for bug reports. See http://www.librarything.com/topic/84468 .

Examples:

*Upload pictures: http://www.librarything.com/editprofile/pictures
*My gallery: http://www.librarything.com/gallery/member/timspalding
*John's gallery: http://www.librarything.com/gallery/member/felius
*Abby's profile. Note the "see all four pictures," the small "member pictures" section on the lower right and the pictures comment showing up in her comments: http://www.librarything.com/gallery/member/ablachly
*A single picture, showing high quality: http://www.librarything.com/pic/90038
*The picture tag "my library," between us:http://www.librarything.com/gallery/tag/my%20library
*Recent pictures(1): http://www.librarything.com/gallery/recent
*Top "snagged" pictures: http://www.librarything.com/gallery/recent

Why we did this?

1. The old profile system was technically limited. Caching was a continual problem. It was inflexible. Image sizing was limited and quality was poor. Storage was terrifying.
2. The new system allows people to show more about themselves—and their books. I think members will enjoy showing off pictures of their library in particular.
3. It opens up a new class of memes—me and my favorite book, etc.
4. Most of the system is general, and will be applied one-by-one to all the other images on LibraryThing.
5. Most importantly, we will finally be able to improve how LibraryThing stores and manipulate book images. We can now have multiple images for a book, and different types of images. The former will be nice for the rare-and-collectible crowd. The latter will allow spine-images and back covers.
6. Before you object, this did not take me very long—about two weeks, partial labor. (By contrast, the redo of contacts took almost 2 months of work.) It's fluff on the surface, but the technical limitations of the old system were glaringly obvious. I didn't look forward to maintaining that forever.

Other details:

Default images. LibraryThing's "default" images were five years old. I had no originals. Some were probably not licensed correctly. So I had to re-find them all. Some I couldn't find in a version we could use. So, I made a few swaps. The "tapir" and "easter egg" images are new. The Nabokov image is a free one—not the better shot, from his time at the MCZ in Cambridge.

Some mistakes. For an obscure reason some members may find their image isn't their current one, but a larger one that they uploaded prior to their current one. Either way, it was your profile image for a while. But it might not be your current one. I'm sorry about this. I am not sure if it's fixable, except by you uploading a replacement image.

What's missing? There are a lot of features "missing." Popular tags is one. Another is the ability to mark when a photo contains a given book—for example you and your favorite book, which should appear both in your profile gallery and associated with the book. I built a thumbs-up system in, but removed it because I didn't want people using the system as "hot or not." I think it would make sense to turn it on when users enter books in some sort of meme or contest.

I'm open to other ideas.

---

1. Hurry and visit before shots of John's toilet library push all the cute girls off the page.

Very nice! You might want to set the IMG titles so people can get a mouseover and tell what each one is (especially useful for some of the authors). Of course, I'm using Firefox which has broken title support so it's kind of a moot point for me...

And I'd question the use of "snag." It's a perfectly good word, but might not be the best for non-native English speakers, who might have all sorts of reasons for using the main English site.

Congratulations, Tim & the LT gang!

>1 timspalding: (Re: John's photos) Have you read Books do furnish a room? There is a chapter devoted to bathrooms and loo libraries. Ewww :)

Not that one. My wife and I did find three decorating books about it before building our library.

I have a thing against bathroom libraries, or indeed any fixed concession to the idea people read in the bathroom. Instead, there's always a pile of newspapers—there, but not officially recognized. Somehow that makes sense to me...

Super, smashing, lovely! I want to see people's library piccies (although I fear some may need an OCD organising intervention!). *toddling off to take some pictures of books*

This is nice. Will you mind people using it as a general photo storage facility? I'd find that very tempting. You have a limit to picture size but I see no mention of limit to number of pictures.

v

#4 What's with this anti-bathroom reading stuff, Tim? I am guessing that you are thinking about reading while sitting on the john rather than lying back in a relaxing tub (like this maybe - http://www.librarything.com/profile/lilyfyrestorm ).

I suppose it's different with a houseful of kids but the thought of a few moments sitting down without a book fills me with the same sort of unease as would getting on a train or setting off for the airport without reading matter. I'd be left in the same fix as Alan Bennett in his Betjeman parody.

Here I sit, alone and sixty,
Bald, and fat, and full of sin.
Cold the seat and loud the cistern,
As I read the Harpic tin.

In fact, I was thinking of making "- in the loo" a subset of "Currently reading" ;-)

>6 vaneska:

Right now, there's a 25-picture limit. I'm debating whether to allow more. Perhaps more if you have a paid account, or pay more. That would only apply to profile images, of course. Covers and such are separate.

>7 abbottthomas:

I admit I'm weird.

Good. I'm glad to have that brief temptation removed.

v

Heh. The thing is, I don't care. I'd love to see 100 pictures from you. But not 100 pictures from every person.

I also think the limit will help prevent people from using it as a way to upload dumb photos for use in Talk.

Oh, sure, just when my camera died on me... ;-(

What does "snagging" mean?

We need a Recently Added picture module for our Home pages.

> 12: I think, depending on the perspective, allowing it to be used, or being allowed to use it.

So coming from a very non-techie pov, my old profile picture is gone and I should upload another now?

So coming from a very non-techie pov, my old profile picture is gone and I should upload another now?

Yes.

Note to others: We shouldn't have lost very many, but if your image was hosted externally sometimes they can't be fetched.

Having to dig around on Google for ANYTHING as to why my profile pic changed to something I don't recall uploading in the past, I was EXTREMELY LIVID to find my profile pic changed and started to wonder if my account had been hacked.

Something that says "We changed the pic system and weird things may happen, don't be alarmed if it goes wonky" on the homepage/profile page would have been appreciated. Not everyone digs around for "New Features", that's not what I use LT for.

I think this new feature is wonderful!

Can we use it to move photos into talk by any other method than HTML? How about into the LT wiki?

I agree about limiting the numbers of photos that can be uploaded. With a limit on the number of photos, people will be more choosy about which ones to upload, hence making the photo collection for each person more interesting.

I agree about using thumbs for contests only.

I think it would be fun to add numbers to the snaggable photos (i.e. how many times a particular photo has been snagged).

>17 ChickPurple:

Sorry for that. You really did upload that picture, but I understand it was a shock. I've added a note to the home page that there's a new feature.

>18 SqueakyChu:

Well, I'd be glad to let people upload as many as they want, if they want to pay for the storage. Yeah, that's mercenary, but also necessary.

In theory we could make a Talk grammar for pictures, but I don't want to encourage it—we've got enough photos of Orlando Bloom and cats in funny situations as it is.

>19 SqueakyChu:

Will do.

I think there will be confusion with the term "gallery", particularly since that term is being used both for the member gallery and author gallery.

Shouldn't this page now be called "author gallery"?

--> 21

Fun! ...and thanks.

I'm loving it so far.

(Except for the electrical tape & furry armpits. To each his her own.)

I'd be glad to let people upload as many as they want, if they want to pay for the storage. Yeah, that's mercenary, but also necessary.

I can envisage being perfectly happy to fess up some cash for that kind of extra - it would encourage me to search out interesting book-related pictures and other things that I wanted to share with LT people. Not a big Flickr fan but that's what I use right now if I want to share anything with LTers. Well worth a bit extra to have the facility here.

> 14

Thanks.

I do wish people would say what they mean.

--> 20

I didn't remember uploading it before what using my current pic, so I was quite shocked this morning when I checked the site.

Thanks for the super speedy add-on to the main page about the picture change. :)

Can we have a zoom button? It's driving me bonkers that I can't zoom in and look at the spines ...

Is there a comment notification for when we get a comment on a picture? If not, can we have one?

And can I have a shire horse (ponies are *so-oo* last year)?

#28 - Yes, I want to be able to read spines!

I see "top snaggable photos" on my "edit profile and settings page" but where to I go to find more snaggable photos - if I don't like those pictured?

In the same vein as Squeaky in #32, is there any way to browse more than the 'recently uploaded' photos?

I like the talk bubble that appears on photos that have comments.

Before any notes of picture changes, I noticed my profile picture changed. I was really puzzled about why you would change my picture. It was more of a direct head shot. But, I am content with the picture now and satisfied with the explanation. I don't think this picture is the one I uploaded and cropped to fit your format, but to tell you the truth, I now can't remember. That's what getting old is all about. Okay, it will happen to you, too.

Do all of our pictures have to be posted in that right hand column? That seems like overkill. :(

It only shows the first seven, I think.

Phew! :)

--> 19, 21

So are the numbers for how many times a picture has been viewed or how many times it's been snagged?

Snagged.

Crazy suggestion:

If we use a photo system, could we, for example, provide some information about what system (site and username, or something), and then, you use the RSS feed for that site or some API for our images in LT?

Example: I use Picasa. On my Google Profile page, I have a section for a photo-roll, which contains my latest pictures in order of upload. I know Google owns both Picasa and Google Profiles, but they also enable you to do similarly with Flickr (which I also have but don't use).

What I'd like is an option to say: I use Picasa, and here's my album, or I use Flickr and here's my album, or I use Popular Image Hosting Site, and here's my album (or even a subset of my album), and LT can take that data, make a page for that picture (but let the current host host it), and allow the same social features as it allows for user-uploaded pictures.

Just a thought.

--> 40

Snagged as a profile photo or snagged as an addition to a member's gallery?

Don't forget this is primarily a book-oriented site. Let's not turn it into Flickr-lite.

Hey, I've got a great idea - how about implementing touchstones in picture descriptions and comments. And hey, as long as you're doing that, you could go ahead and fix the long outstanding touchstone bugs. I mean, just as long as you're in that code. ;)

(Hey, I phrased it in the form of a suggestion for the picture system so it's not nagging, right?)

>44 brightcopy:

I need to get into that code. Not small. And first we need a real search functionality, which is Casey's next project.

43>

Don't forget this is primarily a book-oriented site. Let's not turn it into Flickr-lite.

Hear, hear.

>43 jjwilson61: and 46

Yes, yes, yes.

Three cheers against what other people find interesting!

> 48: Yeah, okay, fine. Not opposing the move to allowing for more pictures if people find that interesting. But being a book site is the core business isn't it?

RE: my crazy suggestion:

I just thought that, well, since it's the Internet, it would be nice to leverage its decentralized nature, and get LT to play nice with other people's data.

I really hate doing things twice, and would much rather let the robots do that for me. That way, I could, say, point LT to an album in my Picasa with all my book-related shenanigans, and I don't have to create duplicate content, and at the same time, only put book-related hi-jinks on one site, and thus alienate users from the other site, or otherwise make things less accessible.

The only significant difference I see between the thing I suggested and allowing users to upload their own images is that LT servers don't have to store duplicate content, ftw.

While we're at it, Tim, can we have better Google Buzz integration? :P

can we have better Google Buzz integration?

I think we should first start a Wave to discuss it.

48>

That's just silly. LT shouldn't try to be all things to all people, or even all interesting things to all people, because there are other sites that already do things like photosharing very well. Enabling people to post a few pictures of their library, or make it easier to switch between profile images, or have more frequent book-pile contests, great. But generic photosharing is already done better other places. That's what I was agreeing with -- a hope that you don't lose sight of the bookishness of LT.

Yes, it's a book oriented site but it's also a social site - I don't think this will make LT less bookish, nor will it ever go so far as to become a Flickr-lite but there's scope for enabling a fuller social experience by adding this and making it a bit more than just profile pics and there's nothing wrong with sharing more than just book-related stuff here. Implying you shouldn't is akin to saying we should be discouraged from discussing non-bookrelated stuff on Talk - that happens all the time and it doesn't make LT less bookish because ultimately books are what draw us here so it's where our interests collide. 25-50 pics wouldn't be an excessive number to have available, I reckon, but it wouldn't offend me if Tim set an upper pay limit that was higher. I wouldn't have to enter that part of someone's public profile if it didn't interest me, so how many photos they had wouldn't really bother me one way or the other.

53>

It's an issue of limited resources; I'd rather see them devoted to core site issues than to answering questions about picture uploading. YMMV.

That's just silly. LT shouldn't try to be all things to all people, or even all interesting things to all people, because there are other sites that already do things like photosharing very well.

I don't really see why the existence of good photosharing sites means that LT shouldn't do photosharing at all. I'd understand if it were an issue of development time; obviously LT shouldn't devote a lot of resources to expanding into new areas just for the sake of it. But this photosharing feature already exists; it's just a matter of deciding how many photos to allow and whether to monetize the process at all. Even the thumbs feature has already been programmed, so it's just a question of enabling it.

What exactly do we lose by letting LT be Flickr Lite? Are you concerned that the photosharing feature will be so good that non-booklovers will swarm the site and drive out the book people?

Edit: It looks like you answered my question while I was posting. I think the concern that developer time will be wasted explaining the feature to users is largely unfounded. Members are good at answering questions and explaining how things work; the developers don't need to devote time to that. If there are actual bugs with the picture uploading system, that's a legitimate site-related issue, because the cover pictures and profile pictures use the same system now--at least, I thought that was the whole point.

I was just responding to the piling on of suggestions of how LT could do photo sharing "better." I mean this is nice, but I don't want Tim working on it for the rest of the year.

I wouldn't worry too much; Tim isn't exactly known for devoting a lot of development time to new features after the initial release.

57>

Fair point, and the "devoting lots of time to implement everyone's suggestions about improving the photosharing" issue was one of my primary concerns as well.

Following up on 36, do any of our pictures have to be posted in that right hand column of the profile. It seems pretty cluttered already. And there's already a link under the main profile photo to see the rest of their pictures. Personally, I'd rather my profile not display 7 of my pictures.

ETA - I think I'm finding it especially annoying because, since my library's private right now, my pictures are showing up "above the fold" when other people look at my profile, whereas for non-private members they're buried way down below everything else.

By the way, on the cover images side: will that also be linked to our own galleries, so that we can see which covers we've uploaded? And might that mean that the images on the "change cover image" page could get linked to particular members' profiles, so we could see who uploaded them?

--> 59

Actually, I didn't like all of those photos showing in the right hand column so I deleted all of mine except for three. It looks better. I'll upload more pictures when I have some pictures that will actually enhance my LT membership.

By the way, what if someone snags a picture of mine, and then I decide to delete it? Do they still have a copy of it, or do they lose it when I delete my picture?

So, I love all this new photo stuff, but my mind keeps going back to the picture limit, and "I'm debating whether to allow more. Perhaps more if you have a paid account, or pay more".

So, if I paid more, I could upload a gallery of all my bookcases and book-boxes and book-piles? *bounces!* PONY PLEASE!!

But yes, this is awesome. If only I had some more interesting pictures on my computer....

By the way, what if someone snags a picture of mine, and then I decide to delete it? Do they still have a copy of it, or do they lose it when I delete my picture?

If you share an image like that, you lose control over its final destiny.

ETA - I think I'm finding it especially annoying because, since my library's private right now, my pictures are showing up "above the fold" when other people look at my profile, whereas for non-private members they're buried way down below everything else.

Pictures only show up if you have more than one. I think, generally, it's a good feature. At some point we have to decide what's interesting and what's not. People who post multiple pictures are presumably doing it because they think someone will be interested in it.

People who post multiple pictures are presumably doing it because they think someone will be interested in it.
Well, no, not exactly. I posted because it's more convenient to store potential profile pictures I might use all together here, rather than having to find and upload them each time I want to change. I wouldn't upload anything I don't want others to see, but I didn't upload them intending to show them off, or thinking that they'd all be displayed on my profile. If someone wants to go to the trouble of clicking through to see my gallery, fine. It may seem like a small difference, but there is one. I could just remove all but one photo, to get rid of the box on my profile. But then the feature becomes less useful for storing and using photos for me (ETA and it goes back to just what it was before: 1 photo limit, and the need to upload again each time I want to change something).

My LT default has always been no pictures for the 3 years+ that I've been here. Recently I loaded one up just for the hell of it and quite liked it. I loaded a 2nd one when the new feature was released really just to play around with it. At first the picture feature was difficult to find without direct links. Now it's gone completely the other way: several links and with all stored photos being waved around the profile page as mentioned above. I've taken them off since I don't like not being in control of that kind of thing. I notice that the profile picture has not disappeared overnight. I'm hoping this is the cache. The facility to stipulate whether you have a profile picture has disappeared so I'm taking it for granted that if you don't have a picture uploaded and marked as main profile picture then there should be nothing.

v

>66 vaneska:

I think it's reasonable that a feature like a profile gallery should be shown, if used. If you upload multiple pictures, there needs to be some indication of it. However, would it suffice if there was "show gallery" option on your accounts page and that got rid of that section?

On your picture still being there, let me see what's going on. To be clear, how do you think you got rid of it? Was it by going to the picture and hitting "delete"?

Yes. I can't think of any other way - can you?

I'm not really bothered by the picture thing - you do what you feel is right. Pictures, like covers, don't really matter much to me.

v

I am not sure I will ever use it to add more pictures - don't see the point.

I like the junk drawer to store stuff for Talk.

Would prefer the 'Gallery of pictures you can Snag' be hidden behind a link. They aren't my pictures, or relevant to me, are rather banal and yet they are all over my picture space. Visual Spam.

I'm still finding the presence of those pictures in the right hand column annoying. If someone wants to see my gallery, all they have to do is click the correct button.

Maybe if those pictures were reduced in size somewhat, perhaps to thumbnail, they would not be quite so annoying where they are.

What is a junk drawer?

They're thumbnails. Are you using a phone or something?

What's a junk drawer? It says on your profile you have four kids. You don't have a junk drawer?

I'm using my PC. You must have exceedingly large thumbs...

Only had three kids, thank you. They were enough, but let me go play with the junk drawer* a while. I'm assuming that others cannot see photos in the junk drawer.

*Yeah, yeah. I do know the junk drawer. That was where I'd put something to use later, but then that item never showed up again because my younger son had "borrowed" it for some obscure project.

Ooops, reposting something in the bug thread.

Others can see photos in your junk drawer, because the point is to have a place to stick them for Talk posts and such.

But there's no link to your junk drawer gallery. Others can see it—because not to would imply it was private, which it can't be. So, the photos can be seen, but nobody's going to be looking at the drawer all spread out.

Could I have the ability to put my profile picture in my junk drawer? In that way, other members need not see it twice.

>69 FicusFan:

Hidden behind a link now.

>76 SqueakyChu:

The objection is that, half-way down your page, your profile image also appears in a gallery area?

Yeah. Why should it be seen several times? If it's your profile, people have already seen it. They're looking in your gallery for other pictures.

Okay, I can remove the primary one—the one that's showing—but not the others. Fair?

I'd be happy with that. Thanks!

Cool. Done.

Could we have another route to the gallery page please? For instance, via the Gallery link on the home page (.../Memes | Clouds | Gallery)

Okay, but only if I get to add another link on the profile page.

You could delete the redundant home and profile links to make room.

67> (I know you were responding to someone else here, but I think we have the same concerns.)

I think it's reasonable that a feature like a profile gallery should be shown, if used. If you upload multiple pictures, there needs to be some indication of it.

There is indication of it, under the profile picture, where it says "see all 2 pictures." That is sufficient.

However, would it suffice if there was "show gallery" option on your accounts page and that got rid of that section?

Yes, if by that you mean a link to the gallery and no thumbnails on the profile.

> 77 Thanks.

> 77, Tim I tried the link on the pictures - it doesn't seem to work. Click on it and nothing happens. Doesn't bother me, but others might want to view the snaggable pics.

One thing I think would be really really helpful (especially in the junk drawer) is having the direct link to the picture itself available somewhere for easy copying.

I know one can right-click, copy image location, but most users aren't typically aware of that, and many picture sites (such as photobucket) have the 'direct link' available right there.

In fact, do one better and have the img src= already done up for copying, for Talk use! (Again, photobucket is a great example of how this can work).

1> I've ran through some of the flagged pictures and read the comments posted by the users. I think there needs to be some language on the flagged picture page that explicitly and noticeably tells the user to go back and edit the picture and put the copyright information in.

Right now, I see plenty of valid pics where the author put the copyright in as a response to the comments about why it was flagged. They need to be steered into putting that information back in the picture, where it belongs.

Also, I think you should get rid of the "Addition information" button that hides the Copyright Information when editing a pic, since this is becoming such a crucial part of uploading pictures.

In fact, do one better and have the img src= already done up for copying, for Talk use!

That's a great idea. Flickr does it as well and with different sizes.

You could do some checking and ensure that the height or width is included in the img tag so that, if a member uses this method, the images is limited to, say, 640 px on the longest side.