The new page is not bad, but I only have one concern, on the new page it tells me that I have 8728 published photos, since in reality I have 8940 published photos, what happens to the rest of the photos? 212 photos were ""lost""
I wrote a long comment, but switching form the beta version to the current one and back, resulted in me being logged out, so when I clicked "sent" the whole comment disappeared.
So whatever you are going to write, first save your comment somewhere before sending it.
It will take some getting used to but looks ok. I can't see the "More of" options - I use this quite a bit to see other photographers work or of the same ship, is it gone for good?
Patrick, if you are referring to the "More Of This Ship" section in the photo page, it is available at the same spot right above the comments.
I wrote a long comment, but switching form the beta version to the current one and back, resulted in me being logged out, so when I clicked "sent" the whole comment disappeared.
So whatever you are going to write, first save your comment somewhere before sending it.
Pieter, you are absolutely correct, because both versions (current and beta) run on the same domain the user's sessions overwrite each other when you login.
Please everyone follow Pieter's advice when writing a post. Another alternative would be to use the bowser's incognito feature, or even another browser to check out the beta version.
2. The absence of the summary page has been tried to compensate with making selections possible on more than just the IMO number, but also on the basis of name and MMSI number, and more factors. That could be useful, but the summary page was a very useful tool for checking in which category a ship had been allocated, for instance for posting a ship for the first time. So bring back the summary table.
2. The absence of the summary page has been tried to compensate with making selections possible on more than just the IMO number, but also on the basis of name and MMSI number, and more factors. That could be useful, but the summary page was a very useful tool for checking in which category a ship had been allocated, for instance for posting a ship for the first time. So bring back the summary table.
Pieter, the Ship Summary page was discontinued based on feedback from the ShipSpotting Admins.
However some of it's elements have been incorporated on the photo page, such as "Photo Categories", "AIS Position of this ship", "Photographers of this ship" and "Port History".
These sections are presented when such data is available for the photo's ship.
4. A large section of the some is devoted to most popular categories: Views alone is not the way to go, because some broad categories contain many more ships, than other categories that have been broken down by age brackets etc. It is not for nothing that Chemical and Product tankers is the most popular category in the beta version, it contains all the ships built from 1970 onwards. As long as there is no algorithm combining the number of ships and the number of views per category, it is simply useless. The home page space better to be used for other things, such as an extension of the space foe making comments.
About the new website: in general looking very good, a modern, fresh layout. But one important remark:
My request to handle inland vessels with ENI the same as seagoing vessels with IMO has been totally ignored. ...
Looks good!
It would be nice if full-size photo ("full screen") could be opened in a new tab instead of a new window.
Interesting re-design. Presumably new site will incorporate the long awaited "https" designation?
The new design should lend to a better viewing experience for both, Members & Guests.
Looking forward to the final product.
I would like to see the photo dimensions with each image.
I am only interested in high res photos so would not need to open to actual size only to find that it os quite small
May I remind the IT-group, admin-team and members to this topic:
http://forum.shipspotting.com/index.php/topic,16836.0.html
...
...
And maybe because of the beta-version: indexing is not tuned yet; after upload all three photo's came back different. It were not my photo's but with my text /details, etc.
@Pieter I, did the same, no need to scroll down, 27 inch screen. The photo that came up was not the one I posted.
I tried to upload three photo's on the new website and I am not happy with the new upload screen.
It would be nice to make it more compact: now I have to scroll down to fill in the lower fields.
Resizing the screen itself is no solution: then the characters become to small and are difficult to read.
...
There seems to be a problem with accessing the site properly - including logging-in, for at least some members using Firefox.
It defeated me all day, even when IT thought that there was no problem. Then I found that access was possible using MS Edge (maybe Google Chrome is OK too - I refuse to have it)
There are many problems with the new design but, until it is clear that members can access it properly, I think that it is premature to focus on them.
Do note, that the long-overdue conversion to https has now been implemented, as promised by IT
I have noticed that, although some uploads were successful on 2 March, the images themselves are all currently missing from https://www.shipspotting.com/photos/3399780 onwards
Finally, I have asked IT to comment here on the accessibility question as soon as they able.
Hugo has told me, and I can confirm, that log-in now functions on FIREFOX
He said that log-in also now works on SAFARI, but there are apparently some other issues affecting that browser which need further work.
The uploading problem is top of the pile for Friday.
...
- clicking button "this photo" left of with the message "your photo has been succesfully uploaded" gives: 404 Page not found
...
Just to note that I am keeping an eye on this page. There is no need to repeat items already raised (unless we falsely claim something is fixed!) - if we need to get a broader view of something specific we will ask (probably in a specific form thread)
All will be addressed (obviously over time) - one or two suggestions may prove to impractical or have have undesirable side effects, but we will come to all that in turn.
The uploading issues are IT's priority (plus some basic fuction issues for Safari users)
David
Hallo
I can upload pictures but the problem is that the little steering wheel keeps turning and when I look after let's say two minutes the picture has uploaded to the website but I don't get the notice your picture has been uploaded.
Kind Regards
Hi LPX on a photo you must go to "Photographers of this ship" and click in the photographer name, before was easier an simple like the site itself
regrds
Whats the different between hits and total hits on a photo?
I really don't like the new shipspotting look. I think it's a step backwards. I've been a member here for many years and used to look forward every day to check out the latest photos.Same to me , the old one was easy t navigate .
Now I've lost all interest. I couldn't be bothered anymore to pop in. I'm sure I'm not the only one that feels like this. Should of kept the old shipspotting format. Now it's not nice anymore.
One thing I've noticed recently is that the number of likes and comments recorded against a particular photo is greater in the thumbnail version than in the enlarged version. The latter is correct (at least for comments). Also, I find it slightly irritating that after clicking on a particular photograph when scrolling through a list I'm taken back to the start of the listing.
Sorry,very sorry indeed with the new site,I have noted that one can give likes to his own photo
Hi Pieter, the site at the moment is a mess,in fact if I click in support no indications at all,so... I miss the great old version,if you have a RollsRoyce car you shouldn
I do wish there could be far more "Comments" shown,as was the case previously.
Always interesting.
Hello Pieter, the comparison of a book page with a computer screen in respect of eye fatigue is not appropriate in my opinion. Please ask a doctor about the very different impact of both media....
However this is not one of the bigger problems of the new site but it does add to the impression that several changes on the site are not for the better. Of course we all hope that many issues will be adressed by the IT-team in the nearer future and everybody should have enough patience to wait for that and stay with this site.
Best wishes, Hans
The three fields "Location", "Date of photo" and "Description" are apparently mandatory. When I tried a test upload and did not enter anything there, I got this very error message and the three fields were highlighted with a red border.
I then only ticked "Unknown" with "Date of photo" and "Location" and entered some text in the description field and the upload worked without problems.
So please check whether you filled these fields with data at all. Of course we should enter real data with our uploads. :-)
Regards,
Weserphoto
The views are definitely weaker than before; my understanding is that only the full screen views are counted, and since the list photos are larger now, fewer people are clicking the "full screen" button. The numbers of photos uploaded does not seem to be much smaller than before, though...
Eddie, when I follow your link, I see "Verdi" at Gunness, so far 12 views... (or as it is called now: hits). :)Thanks, Jens. That seems to have kick-started the views!
...and I wondering if there is also something wrong with the hits,so few now
Hi Paul, I think the issue is that users a frustrated with the site, still a lot of issues. My big issue is that ads continue to override the pages I am viewing. I previously spent many hours scrolling through, now at best 10 minutes per day. I have now joined fleetmon not as good as the old site but ok. I know what the owner was trying to achieve however does not work for me. CheersHi Tony,
Indeed I do notice that the number of views is low but is the new website now so bad to handle that members stay away?The navigation is clunky and the site doesn't look interesting.
Indeed I do notice that the number of views is low but is the new website now so bad to handle that members stay away?
I think the new website is terrible.Why is that so if it works from your workaccount? Must check YOUR system maybe.
The navigation is clunky and the site doesn't look interesting.The contents of the site is still the same, depending on uploaded images of your likes of course, navigating around might have changed a bit but so what. An extra click to get the ad out of the way? The site design is not interesting enough? OMG, big deal.
Indeed I do notice that the number of views is low but is the new website now so bad to handle that members stay away?The navigation is clunky and the site doesn't look interesting.
I used to spend plenty of time looking around on the old site but after a just a couple of minutes on the new site, I've lost interest.
That's why the number of views are so low.
The new site design, just isn't interesting.
It's just not a step forward.
@Owen Foley:I'm not the only member to have suggested this, and the significant reduction in the number of views that photos are getting makes it clear that the new website just isn't working near as well as the old one did.
What seems to be your problem?
QuoteThe navigation is clunky and the site doesn't look interesting.The contents of the site is still the same, depending on uploaded images of your likes of course, navigating around might have changed a bit but so what. An extra click to get the ad out of the way? The site design is not interesting enough? OMG, big deal.
Relax and enjoy, have a drink! ;D
From one day to the next and without warning, this website only appears to be viewable after the adblock has been removed.
So only access while constantly being harassed with completely useless ads.
But I do not want to uninstall / install adblock each day for looking at a few new photo
Thanks for bringing Fleetmon to my/our attention as I was wandering where else to post photos.
Is it alright that when you're not signed in you can still open/download original size photos after clicking on "Full screen" (or by opening the image in new tab) ?
Back with previous site design only members had access to original size photos & that was fair.
I noticed that photographs uploaded since the beginning of March have "Shipspotting.com ... Image Copyright
A few remarks about the photo's copyright footer...
Today while I was uploading photos to the website, for the first time it happened that the photos could not be uploaded because they were taken in Concepci
Yesterday I tried to upload a picture of an inland ship (so no IMO number available). Despite checking the box
Hello Everyone,
After considering all of you feedback regarding Ads, an executive decision was taken to provide an Ads Free experience to registered users who have uploaded at least 50 photos in the past year.
This feature has been deployed to both the site and the forum.
Cheers
Strange: under FULL SCREEN I can not save the photos any longer as JPG, only as full-web-page.I noticed that same thing. If we can't share photos in full resolution then this all become pointless.
Is it only me or have other members noticed this as well?
This stopping of downloading someone's photo for your (OWN PLEASURE) goes against everything this site was supposed to be about, which was a photo SHARING site. I post on her to allow others to share my photos, it's my decision so i'm comfortable with all that copyright stuff as it's not going to make me a millionaire, so no more photos from me until it's re-instated.
If everyone else stops to the site stops dead...
@Pieter Melissen: can you please explain which buttons you use?
My buttons are: MORE, Full Screen, righthand mouseclick, SAVE AS.
Choices: Webpage Single File, Webpage HTML Only, Webpage Complete.
JPG is missing, it is no longer there? Has disappeared after 18 years?
I do not understand your remark?
Regards, Pieter
I just did a test with your description at hand, and it do not function that way. Since you may be a moderator, you may have an other menu than the others. I can save the thumbnail only in jpg/jpeg format. So please check the set-up for any hidden changes. And the thumbnail saves as a smaller image than the posted one. With all the comments from the community, an explanation from site admin. is REQUIRED.
Yes Pieter, as Johnny has alluded to right clicking a photo to save as .jpg in full resolution is now no longer an option. I'm not sure how you can manage it and no one else can, but we members are flagging this up as a major issue. Can you pass or show these messages to the IT folk please. Thanks.
saving an image appears to magically be working again. Someone must have changed something!
Hi Denis, yes it is one click more, but it is not that bad. I first could not find EDIT INFO, but now that I know were it is, I have no problems with its location.
As far as favorites is concerned, I checked mine and found two shots that had ended up there long time and I have no idea how they came there. My "favorites" directory sits on my harddisk, if I see a shot that I like for whatever reason, I download it. (so in case I get banned I still have access to the shot).
Hi Denis, yes it is one click more, but it is not that bad. I first could not find EDIT INFO, but now that I know were it is, I have no problems with its location.
As far as favorites is concerned, I checked mine and found two shots that had ended up there long time and I have no idea how they came there. My "favorites" directory sits on my harddisk, if I see a shot that I like for whatever reason, I download it. (so in case I get banned I still have access to the shot).
Pieter, I WAS donwloading every liking photo a decade ago before my HD crashed & I lost everything. Soon I thought I'll just bookmark liked photos here & download eventually. Now the problem is that there are like 2000+ liked photos in my bookmarks & there's no way to quickly download them except for manually going through each which isn't worth the effort.
I'm still treating the new site as a "work in progress", and there are things still being changed/improved.
Next on the list to (possibly) take care of: number of "Likes" that becomes the number of "Comments" as soon as one comment is added, and the number of "Likes" exceeds 3. So you have, for instance, photos that show "90 comments"...
This website seems to be having major issues with spam replies, comments and posts as of late. Is this something IT intend to address?
Also, I got another 504 trying to post this, but the post succeeded, so something with your success message is mis-configured.
This website seems to be having major issues with spam replies, comments and posts as of late. Is this something IT intend to address?
Also, I got another 504 trying to post this, but the post succeeded, so something with your success message is mis-configured.
Smithy, I sent you a PM yesterday, and the the 504 issue is being looked by IT. Rome was not built in one day.
This website seems to be having major issues with spam replies, comments and posts as of late. Is this something IT intend to address?
Also, I got another 504 trying to post this, but the post succeeded, so something with your success message is mis-configured.
Smithy, I sent you a PM yesterday, and the the 504 issue is being looked by IT. Rome was not built in one day.
Rome wasn't unnecessarily torn down :)
I like the new automatic date when uploading photo, it is a nice feature. But it only works for individual uploads, not if you upload more pictures at the same time.
When you look at your photos you can only search newest or most popular you cant start with oldest , I find this very inconvenient.
Like that "date of image" is auto filled
also like the "Category" is auto filled from the IMO number but would suggest that the IMO box comes before the Category box on the upload page to make this function work better.
Like that "date of image" is auto filled
also like the "Category" is auto filled from the IMO number but would suggest that the IMO box comes before the Category box on the upload page to make this function work better.
Hi Robert, the Category is not really auto filled, in the sense that when the IMO number is filled in the category becomes visible. What happens is that you get to see the categories in which there are already photographs of the ship with this IMO number. (f.i. the main ship type category, ships under repair. etc) I agree that the sequence of number and category could better be changed.
Cheers
Pieter
Hello everybody,
I would like to add a remark about the bug reported by Vlad (lappino) about counting of "Comments" "Likes" and also of "Views". The indications of the former two are often coupled. For example, when I commented on the latest pic of inland tanker HUYGENS the indication of Comments changed from 2 to 9 (!) and likewise the indication of Likes changed also from 2 to 9. This has increased to 20 (!) being indicated for each on the thumbnail pic. When the picture is selected it then shows 5 comments (which is the true number) and five likes. This is really not acceptable and the issue should be addressed by the IT-team soon.
Correct counting of the clicks is essentiel to indicate the true interest in a shown picture. When selecting a photo the additional click is mostly counted after a short time, but in some cases the indication is delayed and in some cases it is not counted at all. I have checked this with many older pictures (not mine) and I have seen that around 30 % of the selected pictures had NOT counted the additional view after some days or later.
This is strange considering that the new version is running for five months now. IT-team, please fix this distorting issue as soon as possible to see the true number of views, comments and likes to show the interest in a certain photography correctly. It does matter a lot for the community of this site in my opinion because these entries are the tools for interactions for members and guests.
Many thanks in advance to Hugo Vieira and his team for their efforts to make this website better.
Regards, Hans
Day | ShipSpotting Photo Views | Google Analytics Photo Views |
2022-08-02 | 10,728 | 19,785 |
2022-08-01 | 10,118 | 19,273 |
2022-07-31 | 9,301 | 17,276 |
2022-07-30 | 9,133 | 15,911 |
2022-07-29 | 87,098 | 16,616 |
2022-07-28 | 118,043 | 19,362 |
2022-07-27 | 121,972 | 17,492 |
2022-07-26 | 106,090 | 16,281 |
Hello dear members,Thanks Hugo I really appreciate your detailed explanation but could you or someone else put it in layman terms for someone computer illiterate like me I really still cant understand how it works sorry.
Addressing the issues on the photo view counter. I'll need to explain a few things so please bare with me.
On 2022-07-29 a refactor of the counter was deployed, which changed how the views are counted.
Previous to this date the views were being counted on the server side as was on the old site. This means that all photo page requests resulted in a new view added to the counter. No matter if the page was eventually served to the user, if the user closed the page, clicked on a link or even clicked on the back button immediately (lets say less than 1s) after requesting the page. Also all requests from bots (search engine indexing bots, ...) and generated link previews in various applications (Whatsapp, Messenger, ... just to name a few) resulted in a new view being counted.
As you probably can imagine this is not representative of the "User" views.
Just so there is a clearer picture here are the total daily numbers around the day of the deployment:
Day ShipSpotting Photo Views Google Analytics Photo Views 2022-08-02 10,728 19,785 2022-08-01 10,118 19,273 2022-07-31 9,301 17,276 2022-07-30 9,133 15,911 2022-07-29 87,098 16,616 2022-07-28 118,043 19,362 2022-07-27 121,972 17,492 2022-07-26 106,090 16,281
From 2022-07-30 forward photo all views are counted on the client side, this means that the user requests the photo page to the server and only when the page finishes loading on the user's browser there is a request back to the serve to count a new view for that photo.
This represents a more accurate view count, but it is not without it's disadvantages.
There are circumstances where this request to count a new view can fail even if the user is in fact viewing it.
Some of them could be:
- server being too busy to process the request
- user having adblock enabled (this view count request is flagged as an advertisement pixeltag by some adblockers)
- an instable/very slow internet connection (the request can timeout)
Further to this, and is common to both methods of counting views as it comes from the old site, the counted views are buffered for some time on the database for each combination of photo id and user IP address. Only then they are processed and counted for the corresponding photo.
I believe this was implemented to prevent artificially increasing the view count by repeatedly refreshing the photo page.
Here, in the buffer, is where I believe the issues are occurring, as nowadays the IP address is not a true indication of a unique visitor.
Long gone are the days when each user had it's own unique IP.
This buffer is up for refactoring soon, with the expectation that it will result in a more accurate view count.
Hope this post creates a clearer picture of the process and answers at least some of your questions.
Cheers
@ Pieter: A single shot does not show it, two and more is the issue.
It occurs with uploading your next photo and every one after that......................
I've uploaded 4 photos of the same vessel. After getting the message of successful upload, two of the thumbnails show empty "No image" fields, even as the correct photos appear after clicking on this "empty" field. Anybody?
Given the fact that we repeatedly get spam accounts on the forum that resurrect old threads, would it be possible to introduce more measures to weed out non-human registrants?
Hi Hugo,
The "empty" photos are these:
https://www.shipspotting.com/photos/3470686?navList=gallery&user=97244&page=1
https://www.shipspotting.com/photos/3470683?navList=gallery&user=97244&page=1
Bot are for the tug "Piilani", IMO No. 9369186.
Thanks!
<br/>
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td align=center>
<a href="https://www.shipspotting.com">ShipSpotting.com</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align=center>
<a href="photos/3679298"><img src="https://www.shipspotting.com/photos/small/8/9/2/3679298.jpg?cb=0"></a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align=center>© Captain Peter</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br/>
[url=https://www.shipspotting.com]ShipSpotting.com[/url]
[url=photos/3679298][img]https://www.shipspotting.com/photos/small/8/9/2/3679298.jpg?cb=0[/img][/url]
© Captain Peter
Forgive me if I've missed a notification, I've just spotted that ShipSpotting now allow Ships Monthly to publish photos off here unless you opt out. As I used to get paid for photos in SM and I can't see how (without buying SM) we would know our photos are being used and expect the payment, therefore I have declined this option.
Is there a specific page on this website site that allows you to opt out?