My karma: the "Add Description" link in the galleries.

[Silversleeves]

First, I ought to say I have no idea whether it was exclusively an ImageFap "tweak" to the gallery software, or part of it when the folks putting IF together were "shopping around" for open-source gallery solutions to use. Be that as it may.

Confession time: I suggested it to Banger, the fella who ran ImageCash. I thought, since sites like WhatBoysWant.com and PhotoDump already had it or something analogous to it, it would be a quick & easy add-on feature. Banger said he'd try, but I guess he never found the time or lost the inclination until just before the doors closed permanently on his site. At the time, picture Comments were part of the display software, like now a one-time make & send sort of thing that the gallery owner could delete when logged in, but Descriptions that appeared, as on ImageFap, above the large-sized image on the single-image display pages, were not.

I had no idea that, even as a benign "hack" or add-on or rolled-in feature, however it is nowadays, it would be as hit-or-miss in actual implementation as it's turned out to be. And with software as complex and multi-featured as the gallery stuff appears to be, a lot of work and attention would have to be paid to it in getting it past "hit-or-miss." And who has time for that? Especially now? Especially when, as I hinted to the Admin in a now-destroyed blog post, it might be one of those "tweaks" that just doesn't work right, no matter what you do?

So now you know where the idea came from. I know I'd prefer to have it than to see it taken out. Anyone else care to chime in?

BZT

[DrewFarnmoore]

You talking about the descriptions for the whole gallery that members can add? I always read them except when they are just full of spammed links so id vote they stay if I could.

[Silversleeves]

You talking about the descriptions for the whole gallery that members can add? I always read them except when they are just full of spammed links so id vote they stay if I could.

No. Those nearly always work the first time you edit them, which is to say they register without you having to repeat the process two and three times.

I'm talking about the ones for individual pictures in a gallery. With those, it's often necessary to back up and take two, three or as many as a dozen "shots at it," with no guarantees that it will work. In the same browser in which you happen to be surfing, in the same login session, without having to surf away and come back. I'd say the flaw was cookie-related if it wasn't so inconsistent and hit-or-miss. Predictably unpredictable, almost.

This thread was my apology both to myself and to those who have found it as difficult to do as I have, for coming up with the idea in the first place. Or at least the idea to apply it to this particular gallery software.

And anyway, the gallery description also appears in that neat vertical rectangle below the bigger pic in the single-image view anyhow. Easier to ignore, there, I agree.

BZT

[Silversleeves]

Back on topic after more than a month.

I understand from reading the Admin's note in the "Suggestions" thread that this quirky behavior may have to be looked into by the developer of the software.

Not a problem, really. I hardly think the developer anticipated it being part of software installed on a site with as much gallery 'add' and 'view' traffic as ImageFap has. Or maybe that's part of the problem: not enough people do use it, and it winds up an "unflexed muscle" on that part of the site. I've noticed that, even with software written to run in command-line Unix or GUI Linux on one computer or over a LAN, if a function or feature isn't used or taken advantage of for awhile, the software tends to "get lazy" and assume it won't get used; when it finally does, it's a bitch on rollerskates (with jet packs, no less) to get it to work the way one expects it will.

So what explains those rare instances when a description "sticks" after only one click? Cookies? Okay, which of the ImageFap cookies does "Add Description" have a fetish for? Of the six most common ones (see the threads on "Can't stay logged in" for names), just about every one and none have an effect, by their presence or absence, in whether or not the description sticks in the same login session in which one adds it. Surfing away from ImageFap while staying logged in, naturally, creates more cookies. I've seen it happen that the more cookies from other sites one has, the more likely it is to get a just-added description to stick. But "more likely" doesn't mean "guaranteed."

And of course you know it's going to be bloody murder when the tech/s get round to working on these gallery software issues and suggestions. Judging from past performance, we're likely to see a lot of the cyber equivalent of "leaving your tools on the worksite" or "leaving one hinge off the door." It may be prudent, if regrettable, that an "Under Construction: Try Back Later" page gets linked to all the URLs by which folks access ImageFap while this work is going on.

Hey, we're not paying for it -- the Guys Upstairs over in the Netherlands are; they can do what they like. Just don't let the whole thing crash permanently, is the only thing I insist on.

BZT