|
Can collections be the *default* of what someone sees if they go directly to your "flickr URL".
If my username is john, the URL is flickr.com/photos/john, and on the right side is sets. Is there a way to make it show collections instead?
And will there possibly in the future be a flickr.com/collections/john?
The only way to link directly to collections is flickr.com/photos/john/collections
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
nm guys, I'm stupid =) I got so excited that I immediately posted this question instead of looking at the nice "new" message that flickr was kind enough to place on my home page so I can change the layout of my page. d'oh! :P
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Re: sets of sets and collections that contain sets and collections. How much easier is it to have implemented it this way? Sets of sets would be the ultimate way to go, since you can then have your front page have icons that have the most prominant photos one click away, and the less interesting photos two clicks away.
I'm with calanan, The ability to feature sets more prominantly than the photo stream would a great front page layout option. Than you could spotlight newer more interesting photos, yet upload more photos for people to go deeper on if one particular photo interested them. Any hope for this down the road?
Dont' worry, I love what you've done, but there's always been this tension between losing the ability to spotlight photos when posting a lot, and not being able to show the whole collection when only posting a few to be able to spotlight those few.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I'm in agreement with others in this topic that the sidebar on the Photos page really should show both sets and collections together.
As well, it would be nice if the viewer had the ability to at least select a "show traditional view" of another's main page (or "turn off customisations" or whatnot).
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
shhexycorin: I know that, I'm a programmer myself. "Automatically" meant that sets already have those features, and if Flickr had invested their time into sets being able to include other sets instead of creating a whole new "class" of thingies, namely collections, they would have gotten those features nearly "for free".
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Another vote for guest passes on collections! Definitely a must!
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
nevermind - I figured it out!
*edited*
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Long Collection Description Problem
Look here.
That was the description from an old (large) set I broke up into this collection...the description was fine on the sets page....
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
When I go to "organizer" I created a collection, but it will not accept me dropping sets into it...I can't figure it out
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Thanks, this sooo cool, now it begins what is liked or not... never mind, I just stoped for say:
GRACIAS!!!!
Saludos
carlos
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Originally I had a large Set shared with a guest pass.
I want to make these photos into a collection with sub-sets. So ideally, I could share that collection (and sub-sets) on a single guest pass. I set it up that way to see how it works.
When I use the original guest pass to view a photo it will show that the photo is also part of the sub-set I've created in the new collection. If I click that sub-set it will show it also. From the sub-set there is a breadcrumb link for:
Slides in a Flash > Collections > CollectionTitle
Makes sense since that's where the sub-set is found. However clicking on CollectionTitle results in a Page Not Found error, and clicking on Collections says that I do not have any collections.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
It'd be nice for sets that haven't been added to collections to show up on the main page.
For example, I've made two collections Summer and Fall but there are about 4 sets that don't fit into these collections and don't have anything in common with one-another -- so I can't put them all into a common collection.
It would be nice if these "uncollected" sets were to appear on the main page along with the two collections I've made.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
It'd be nice if I just said thankyou.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I can only agree with Keith Little. Think that option would be great!
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Scytale ,
The behavior you describe may be only sorta "for free." You may have to spend much more time coding and designing a logical interface for these mixed sets. I'm hoping there's a phase two down the road, but I'll gladly celebrate the current implementation as fun and useful stuff.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
How about being able to show both sets and collections in the main page, and control the ordering however we want?
So I could have a set, another set, a collection, a set, another collection, etc?
Namely I have about 5 or 6 sets that typically stay near the top, and I like showing sets in the sidebar, but it would be nice if one of those could be a collection.
(Community feedback and collaboration rocks... )
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
You know what, I don't care what anyone else says or wants added or altered to the function, it is good enough for me already!!
BIG THANK YOU FLICKR!!
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
On one of the two collections I created last night, only part of the collection description shows up, here:
www.flickr.com/photos/cobalt/collections/72157594587277950/
I am wondering if there is a limit to the characters used in describing collections. There is no problem with the description on the first collections I created.
Also, wondering if collections will be tallying the views on them, as sets do?
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
so. much. input... ah!
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
i've just changed my layout from "small + sets" to "medium + sets" ... nice. but: why are the picture's titles beneath the pictures and not above them? hmmm ...
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Like @Smile Jennarator, I'm dragging and dropping in organizer and nothing is happening. We appear to have the same problem. Any ideas?
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Like so many others I'd like to have sets and collections on the main page and only a few lines of our descriptions between the medium size photos rather than the full text.
Other than that, great job Flickr. I've waited a long time (since March 2005) for the collections feature. Thanks.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I agree that it would be really nice to display MORE medium sized images. I like the idea of having large images on my flickr page but why limit it to 5? That's too few, I know people will be lazy and not click to the next page so I guess I have to stick with the small images layout for now. :(
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
i'm very happy about the new "collections" option, however, i have similar concerns as a couple of others here:
(1) i would love to have collections AND sets appear on the right column, not just one or the other ... it means i have to put ALL my sets into collections in order for them to appear available, and that bites.
(2) i would love the option of having either a single photo represent the collection OR the mosaic....i'm actually not a fan of the mosaic look since i have found that a lot of people are attracted to particular sets simply because of the initial photo chosen...the mosaic photos are far too small to be of any use for actually showing what's in the collection or enticing people to look further.
and i'm with j-a-x on the more "medium sized" photos on the first page ... i think a lot of people are too lazy to go to the next page...maybe even just a couple more photos?
and here's something that has stumped me ever since i came onto flickr....why oh WHY can we not have our sets/collections thumbnails run the entire length of the first page? why does it stop after 10 when there's easily enough room for 20?
thanks!!
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@Flame Lily and Smile Jennarator
Try dragging to almost on top of but just below the name of the collection.... a little line appears and then you can drop... (had the same thing happen)
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I found last night when I was surfing around, the front pages of people who had switched to medium-sized photos were taking a fairly long time to load - so long in fact that if the top picture was not unusually interesting I stopped the transmission and went on.
This may be fine with many of the people who have switched but I think for many they will be losing views and possibly new contacts from having so little of their work on easy display.
I don't think it is always a matter of laziness that people don't move on in a photostream, there is a limit of both interest and time at play too.
And since this is the official thread let me add my plea for the removal of the gray surrounding the sets. I find it makes the page look very crowded when it is not.
And let me remember my manners and thank the Flickr staff for their exemplary work providing this wonderful site. Great job folks!!
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I like the new collections feature a lot. So much so that I went and made a bunch of them today. My collections page, however, has a wonky layout. The first two rows are evenly spaced, but all of the rows following that have the first two collections smooshed to the left side, as can be seen in the third row here:
Is this by design, or does it need fixing?
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
It's a great start, but I'm with some. I was really hoping for a way to just reduce the volume of sets I have. Basically embed a set within another set the way you would embed a folder into another folder in Windows. Now I still have just as many sets...I just have another layer to track things at, another interface, another object type. But I guess something is better than nothing.
A few tweaks I'd like to see...
Ideally, I'd like a collection to be able to have both collections and sets within it. For now I've had to create (sub) collections with just one set in them.
Maybe some additional features around mosaics--a "most interesting" or "most viewed" option? Something dynamic that randomly (or dynamically according to most interesting/viewed) changes every day/week/whatever
Ideally, you'd be able to drill up through a collection from a photo (or am I too stuck on the hierarchical tree structure?). One of the great things about Flickr is how non-linear it is navigating up, back and to the side. But I'm with some of the other posters...we don't need it as more clutter buried with the sets and groups identifcation. Maybe some way to segregat them? Collapsible lists that separately show the collections, sets and groups a photo is in?
Fewer but larger photos in the mosaic? They're pretty illegible right now.
How about searching for/tagging collections and sets?
Also like the idea of a map for collections.
I'd like to more options on the photos page layout. Maybe a toggle between thumbnails and small photos (or allow the viewer to do that)
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
The problem with >15 character words now seems to be fixed - thanks very much!
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Impatient for "sets of sets" I created my own solution, which has some common features with the new collections but in other respects differs. I am now wondering if it is possible, at least for the existing sets of sets in my photostream, somehow to integrate them into the new presentation, especially page layout. I imagine that changing the name from "sets of sets" to "collection" will only have a cosmetic effect lacking the underlying programming. Is there a way to do what I want without abandoning a presentation I have come to love? (Others do, too)
In case sight of my solution is needed, here's a link to it:
www.flickr.com/photos/harold_stern/sets/72057594126210648/
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
My vote for a collections AND set layout too. As I also have sets not in a collection. I use collections to group together my trips to HK and my nature photography, the other things should stay in sets as Its not easy to group them logical in the collections.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I didn't need this.
I should be working... but instead I am playing with this at the office.
I vote for Collection AND Set Layout too. Let us arrange the ordering however we like.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
My set layouts are not quite right, a bit funky. This seems to be a rendering issue in Safari and Firefox for Mac so far. Isn't the case in IE on the PC. Help! I can't live with this layout, see below.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Eep! Sorry about that -- I've put the smack down on the CSS and it should be A-Okay now.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Love the updates thus far. Can't wait for more ;)
Since the elevation of "Collections, I noticed that
drag+drop is used more and that's cool.
But for the love of Flickr, will complete
Shift+Click and CTRL+Click functionality ever be added to the organizer?
It makes moving more than 3 sets to a collection a tad bit cumbersome and/or moving dozens of images out of set a real chore.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
another thought re. medium sized vs. small sized photos on front page... i sometimes have a fair bit of text under certain photos. when using the small-sized-photos format, that text is cut off...because of this, i think - quite often - that the viewer is enticed to click on the photo to see it in medium size AND to read the text ... and when doing so, they are presented with the full text as well as the comments of others AND a ready place to add their own.
BUT if i use the medium-sized-photos format on my front page, ALL the text is already viewable, so it's one less reason for the viewer to actually go that photo's page, read the text, and then easily leave a comment.
i wonder how many people - when viewing streams with the photos already in the medium-sized format - will take the time to click on the photo in order to leave a comment?
....or am i just a comment-slut? :)
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
just wanted to add my vote for a few issues that have already been brought up a hundred times in this thread:
the grey box is not aesthetic, but more importantly, does nothing to improve usability.
the mosaic icon is absurd, as the images are far too small to be recognizable whatsoever. You should have the option of # of images in the icon, for those people who prefer to just have a single photo big enough to see.
only giving the option of displaying sets OR collections on the first page is too limiting, for the reasons suggested above, but also because this would require many users to turn their sets into collections so that they display in a similar manner to what they were used to. The layout option needs to include an alternative of displaying collections AND sets.
as a person who takes lots and lots of landscapes from different areas, I've been dying to see a subset option on flickr, an in fact haven't uploaded hundreds of photos because i didn't want to have to go back and reorganize them if the feature ever became available. With the existing collection parameters, though, I'm actually more likely to just keep using sets.
I think the problem is that flickr could have just added one simple upgrade - the ability to nest a set inside of another set - but they wanted to try and add some additional bells and whistles to 'sex it up', none of which actually improve the usability experience of either the photographer or viewer.
thanks for trying, though.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Ok I tried, but I can't get my head around Collections as they are. Super-sets, sets and sub-sets, would have made sense, but with collections of collections, or of sets, there's no logical way to use it to organise my shots more effectively.
I think someone else posted a similar story, but for me the problem is like this:
I have a whole load of photos of places say Kent, Sussex, and Hampshire in the UK and a few from Australia, Canada, whatever.
But I live in Hampshire so I have a lot from there, so I have split it up into specific places in Hampshire, like New Forest, Danebury, Portsmouth.
So what I need is a super-set called Hampshire to put all these in and then I can put that in a superset called, say UK which contains the Hampshire set, a Sussex set and a Kent set, etc.
Then the UK would go in another superset called Places alongside Canada, Australia.
Except of course with collections this is impossible as I'd need an extra collection for each of the lowest level sets on each branch to make sure I wasn't combining sets and collections, and I'm pretty sure if I tried it I'd hit the nesting limit.
So I'm afraid I've given up on them. Sorry Flickr! Nice try but not for me as it is now...
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
right there with you, illona. it looks like they made the text prettier (it how includes html and the formatting) but I still wish it behaved the same as the small images, and only showed a few lines of the description.
I dunno, maybe it'll grow on me. Right now it just looks like a text-heavy blog with some pictures thrown in. After all was said and done, my big choice for new fancy format turns out to be... small images and sets. c'est la vie.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Skink, what about:
Collections: Places: UK: Hampshire >> sets-New Forest, Danebury, etc.
Collections: Places: UK: Other than Hampshire >> sets-Sussex, Kent, etc
Collections: Places: World>> sets- Canada, Australia, etc.
So, a collection called Places, which holds 2 collections (UK and World).
A collection called UK which holds 2 collections (Hampshire and Other)
A collection called World which holds sets.
Would that work?
I've done something like that with my Travels collection, holding 2 collections (Travels in NZ, Travels around the World) and then each of those collections holding the sets.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
3 things
1. Congratulations¡¡¡
2. I dont like the grey column, please add an option for the layout we had without this column. I also would like a layout with collections and sets that arent in any collection to have all my sets and collections displayed in the main page.
3. The new set layout is great¡¡¡
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
Peonza edited this topic 16 months ago.
|
|
|
@Brenda - I see what you're saying but that's still two extra collections than I would ideally have (the UK other, and World ones in your post). And it's probably worse than that if I look more closely at my stream. For instance I have a set of Chichester Cathedral (in Sussex) so if I wanted to add that I have to have a new Places: UK: Sussex collection.
Sets of sets of sets of sets, seems like it would work better.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I agree it's not perfect but it's a method of dealing with it the way it works. :)
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I'm so thrilled to finally have this option available to us and the new layouts are extremely nice, as well. That part was like icing on the cake when I found out, yesterday.
There are only a couple of things that I would love to see added. Reading back through the posts just now, I realize that they've already been brought up a bit, so I'm guessing that they're are others who feel the same.
Because I'm not a huge fan of mosaics or collages, plus the pictures inside of them are a bit small, I really would prefer to have the option of having only one single image in the icon, represent collections. Kind of like sets within sets. But, I think the idea of a collection is fantastic. I also have to agree, though, that I'd really like the have the option of having not just collections, but collections and sets be on the main page. So, that not all sets have to be put into a collection to be seen on the main page, without clicking on a text link. While still leaving people who would prefer it the way it is, to have that option, as well. Those are just some of my thoughts.
Thanks so much for always listening to our suggestions and for making flickr a great place, guys! The collections are fantastic! <33
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
roane selkie edited this topic 16 months ago.
|
|
|
But it seems that if I have to create an extra level of effectively empty collections to achieve it, I may as well just leave it as it is.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@ Brenda
how did you manage to get one picture ("travels") as an icon - instead of the mosaic ...?
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
It's actually a mosaic. (I cut the photo up into 12 images in photoshop elements and uploaded them as private, then dragged them into place). Just being tricky. :)
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I like it, I do, I really do. But grey bar = ugly. Please take it away!
Also, and I know I'm not alone here, I would really like to be able to mix sets and collections inside collections, have the option to have only one photo dispaly for the collection icon and be able to place a mixture of sets and collections on my front page.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@brenda
wonderful idea ...! ;)
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I would like to go officially on record - after thanking Staff and Coders for all their excellent work, as usual, of course - as being the only person on Earth who apparently thinks the new gray backgrounds and borders are just fine the way they are.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Great job with the mosaic, Brenda! I had thought about that possibility, but wasn't quite sure how it'd look. I'm liking it, though. Yours looks great. ^_^
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Brenda: you are my hero... now if only I had the time!
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
question: is there a simple way to convert an existing set to a collection?
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
error: When I wanted to pick from a set to create the mosaic, it created an error when I picked a brand-new (just created) set from the drop down. Older sets populated the findr without error:
See here
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
answer: no there isn't. Sets contain photos, collections contain sets or collections, NOT photos. So they are different things. You can put a set into a collection. The collection then contains all the set photos. It does add an extra layer to get to them though.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
great improvement, just love the new applications. it rocks!
thank you, folks from the staff!
only one thing... i agree with many others here about the descriptions box, showing the text in its totality makes the layout's aesthetics brutal… could be better with one or two lines visible only.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I read one comment here about the text alignment issues... I don't believe I've ever noticed it before, but it might be all the other changes bringing it out, but why oh why doesn't the set description center underneath the 'main' image on a set page?
even on a landscape orientated image, it is still off to the side a little (example)... and under the portrait orientated.... ugh! maybe it's bothering me a bit too much, but CSS is very important to me ;) is it maybe supposed to be as if it is indented? hm.
oh, and another CSS-y thing... if someone has their frontpage with the medium sized photos... couldn't we *please* have a space between the top image and the dotted grey line? :) good lord, I might be getting picky, but one more thing I swear about the medium sized front page - it would be nice if landscape and portrait orientated photos were centered. the landscapes look nice, but the portraits are knocked over to the side a bit.
ok, I'm done now. ;)
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Waiting for staff input here - this is going to be a LONG thread, so it would be nice to see staff interjections every so often.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Hm. I actually like it better the way it is now (with showing full description in medium size layout), it always bugged me to lose line breaks in the photostream view and not to see the whole description. I don't mind if there's lots of text in case I have a long description, it saves people from having to click on the image although it reduces the number of clicks counted, but I sure can live with that.
If you want to avoid long descriptions in the stream, you can always put them into a comment - workaround, but would work for me.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I'm with the folks above who asked for directory-style sets that can contain both photos and other sets, much like Gallery's albums. The current scheme baffles me somewhat, and doesn't seem very intuitive. It's also not useful for what I need (though clearly it's very useful to many other folks).
In any case, thank you for putting so much effort into Flickr!
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Question: why the collection mosaic is only based on public photos? If i have a private collection, is there any way to have a mosaic based on different privacy levels?
On the same topic, is or will there be privacy level for collections too?
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Flickr Help - I have the same bug / issue as smcgee has illustrated in her post above. Using IE6, have not checked with other browsers as yet.
My 'Collections' page is misaligned. I have seven collections in total. The first row of three are aligned and spaced ‘correctly’ (it would seem).
The second row has only two collections, with both aligned above the collection above. OK so far, but no third collection on this row.
The third row of two is not aligned, with the mosaics joined at the hip (so to speak).
It appears that the length of the title in the second collection in the second row is pushing the 6th collection onto the third row, and blowing the layout. Is this a wrapping issue with the collection title length?
EDIT: Fixed, thank you ...
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
bruce-p edited this topic 16 months ago.
|
|
|
Is this a wrapping issue with the collection title length?
It is! A fix is in and should be out on the site shortly. Sorry for the ugly wrapping nonsense. Ew.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Way cool feature, I've already messed with it.
I actually kind of like the gray bar. :)
And I'll add my "pretty please" for showing both collections and sets on the front page instead of one or the other.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
why the collection mosaic is only based on public photos?
The How are the random images chosen for my collection mosaic? FAQ does a good job of answering that.
Collection privacy works just as set privacy does.
Meaning, that the privacy level of the Collection is the same as the most publically visible photo within the Collection. So, for example, if you have a collection called "Paris" that contains a set called "Boudoir" and that Set has 10 private photos, and 1 Public photo, then the "Boudoir" set and "Paris" collection will be visible (but the 10 private photos won't be.)
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
treebjen, if a collection has a mix of private and public sets, say, 4 public and 5 private, the collection will show 9 sets, even though only 4 are visible. reported here
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
This new feature is cool, but definitely needs improvement. Like many others, I'd like:
1.) to be able to mix collections and sets within a collection
2.) have both collections and sets display on the sidebar
3.) display one photo instead of a mosaic for a collection
Also, for some reason I can't drag replacement photos into the mosaic or in fact, move the pictures in the mosaic around. All I can do is randomize. (Mac - both Firefox and Safari)
And I totally agree - the grey bar doesn't look so hot.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
iomarch edited this topic 16 months ago.
|
|
|
if a collection has a mix of private and public sets, say, 4 public and 5 private, the collection will show 9 sets, even though only 4 are visible.
Yup -- that's a bug. As noted in the other thread, I've filed a bug on it. Thanks!
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
+1 on the 3 requests by iomarch
Don't think I'll be using collections much until those things are implemented. Or at least until #2 is there.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Just interjecting for the benefit of cobalt123.
Not that I can do much as I'm standing at the airport reading this thread on my cellphone.
But that just goes to show how much I love all you guys, keep on playing with it. :)
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Well folks, I like that I can do a bit of re arranging on my photos page. I finally decided to give the creation of Collections a try.
I am running Firefox2, and I am finding that when I drag to sets to the left gray bar, where it says to drag, they bounce back and the Collection will not create. No matter which of the sets I choose it does not seem to work, at least for me running FF2.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
you read my mind! ...or maybe my feature request. either way, great job and thank you!
i do have two requests: 1) the mosaic functionality is very cool, but it would be great to have the option to use a single image for a collection, instead of a mosaic. 2) it would also be nice to have a layout option allowing collections AND sets to appear in the right column. this would be beneficial in cases where a set does not live within a collection.
much appreciated.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
mennyj edited this topic 16 months ago.
|
|
gstrader Are you dragging them right on top of the collection you have created?
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
yes
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
3e
says:
Bug: In the organizer, if you have placed a set into a newly-forming Collection, then open that set and delete the set, upon returning from deleting the set, it will still show in the new Collection. Saving the collection will make the sets-in-collection count decrement, but the ghost set's name will still appear as a member.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Thanks Flickr. I love it; however,
Add another to the requests by iomarch.
- Layout option for BOTH collections and sets (or I will just have to make needless collections to show my sets there too)
- That grey box on the side and the thin grey line on the top is slightly hideous.
- The number of pictures to show to represent a collection (between 1 & 12). (12 is too small to see on the main layout page).
Must get collecting...
-specialk
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I have changed the layout of my photostream so that sets won't appear anymore, but now I want them back and I can't find the way of doing it in the Organizer or any other place. How do I put all my sets again in my front page?
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Great! Been waiting for this a long time. However:
I moved my sets into my two collections from top (newest) to bottom (oldest). But in the collection they appear oldest (top) to newest (bottom). There doesn't seem to be any way to move them around except dragging and dropping the individual set names. Not too bad for a collection of nine sets. But my other collection has 28 sets. Not only a hassle but I can only drag a set up (or down) among the sets displayed in the window I find it in -- the list of sets doesn't scroll while I'm dragging. Okay, so I drag a little, then use the slider and drag again, right? No. If I try to drag a set a second time it merely highlights (as does every set I try to drag it by). The only way I can drag it a second time is to exit the Organizr and then go back in again. Am I missing something?
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
www.flickr.com/account/prefs/layout
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
<bug>
In Organizer, it won't let me add one of my collections to another collection. (UH Football to UH).
Interesting tidbit: "A collection is a container into which you can place either sets or other collections, allowing you to create a hierarchy as deep as 5 collections."
</bug>
Thanks.
-specialk
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Well just to update, I was finally able to create a Collection, but the drag and drop it seems only works if you carefully align the thumbnail with the grey line, and arrow. If you are not centered it will not post.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I think these new options are great! I actually like the grey stripe behind the sets or collections on the right... I always thought the sets kinda blended in a little... I like that now they stand out a bit. I also would like to have the option to put both sets and collections on the list on the right. Also, I think it would be cool to have the option to have a column of sets on all pages... not just the first one. But thanks for the new options!
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 In Organizer, it won't let me add one of my collections to another collection. (UH Football to UH).
Does the UH collection already have a set in it? You can't add a collection to another collection if that collection has sets in it. A collection can only hold sets OR collections, not both.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Brenda, WOAH!!! So we can only have collections with only other collections OR only sets. Well what a waste again to create a collection for just one pertaining set.
<request>
-That collections CAN contain collections and sets
</request>
-specialk
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Bonza job guys! Works seamlessly in Flock and adds much needed flexibility to organising tasks. Thanks!
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Arranging of mosaic is now - pretty OK! However still so hugely difficult to change - both: the order of collections and the order of all sets inside (every collection)......... Your kind help would be so much appreciated!!!.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
Dr Tao edited this topic 16 months ago.
|
|
