Author Topic: Artist's Categories (Read 4269 times)

LesPalenik · « **on:** August 29, 2013, 21:10 »

The current image categories are functional, easy to use by the authors and buyers, and work great.

However, since Symbiostock was designed primarily for the benefit of the artists, it doesn't have to be as restricted as the conventional agencies. I envision the underlaying image database as a powerful and flexible platform being able to store additional information that could add even more value to the system.

Specifically, I'm thinking about additional categories. For lack of better word, I'd call it artist categories, type, groups, or something similar. Maybe even two more fields - type and group.
The users wouldn't necessarily see or use it, but the contributors could use various codes to assign more meanings to their images, and then filter on it and possibly even perform other processes on the filtered sets.
For example, we could have various pricing codes, filter on them, and then perform a bulk price change. Or a "original" and "derived (cropped) image" category. Perhaps creation year or maximum image size. Color workspace and other technical data, such as camera, lens, or filer used.
Everybody hase different needs, but by adding a few extra codes / fields to the image database, we could configure and use the images creatively to make our "digital assets" even more useful and productive. Something between Lightroom and inventory item database.

Having those extra codes doesn't mean that they have to be used by everyone. Some people would find it vary valuable, some may never use them, and others might warm up to them once their basic site is up and running.

Kerioak~Christine · « **Reply #1 on:** August 30, 2013, 02:09 »

I am sure I have seen this post before and did not fully understand it then either. We can add whatever categories we want, very few of us have stuck to the original list and can use keywords to so
rt when required. If we added dates could sort on those as well but dates are rarely relevant

ShazamImages · « **Reply #2 on:** August 30, 2013, 04:27 »

I think that he is asking for "hidden" categories.

Quote from: LesPalenik on August 29, 2013, 21:10

The users wouldn't necessarily see or use it, but the contributors could use various codes to assign more meanings to their images, and then filter on it and possibly even perform other processes on the filtered sets.

Kerioak~Christine · « **Reply #3 on:** August 30, 2013, 04:41 »

I *think* that would be easy enough to do - do not add them to the drop down categories in the header and hide the main category page(s) I think the only time they might show up then is if someone does a search on your site and you do not have any results?

ShazamImages · « **Reply #4 on:** August 30, 2013, 04:46 »

Quote from: Kerioak~Christine on August 30, 2013, 04:41

I *think* that would be easy enough to do - do not add them to the drop down categories in the header and hide the main category page(s) I think the only time they might show up then is if someone does a search on your site and you do not have any results?

But won't the "hidden" categories still show up on the image pages themselves?

LesPalenik · « **Reply #5 on:** August 30, 2013, 05:44 »

Quote

I think that he is asking for "hidden" categories

Yes, I was thinking about additional categorization and attributes fields. I mentioned it in another thread, but didn't want to hijack that thread, that's why I created a new thread.

The current categories work great for intended use, there is no need to try to use them for everything under the sun.
As the saying goes - “If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail".

Additional categorization and fields could be used by the site owners to analyze the image databases and to control various bulk activities.
This is not something needed by the buyers, in fact it could even confuse them.

I think, adding a few extra fields to the image database shouldn't be a big problem, and over the time, the smart guys could develop various utilities to use them.

cascoly · « **Reply #6 on:** August 30, 2013, 16:43 »

if implemented, these should be separate from the current categories, otherwise it will be a real mess for reporting, sorting, display, etc. would be better to design it as new field(s) similar to the promoted keywords field -- works like a keyword, but only used by routines that know it's there

LesPalenik · « **Reply #7 on:** August 30, 2013, 18:35 »

Most definitely, they should be separate fields.

In terms of storage, compared to the actual image and other metadata, the few extra fields would be insignificant. I would be happy even if the new fields were just short codes.

cascoly · « **Reply #8 on:** August 30, 2013, 18:58 »

once you have the field, the values would be completely up to each site's owner

LesPalenik · « **Reply #9 on:** August 30, 2013, 19:56 »

Exactly, everybody may have different needs for his collection (although some common trends may emerge).
Making it really simple, having just a few user-definable fields - Usercode1, Usercode2, Usercode3, etc. would provide a great deal of flexibility.
If it's not too difficult, maybe even some multi-valued fields or/and a free-text field.

I don't know much about SQL, how difficult would it be modify the existing image record/table structure to add the extra fields, or perhaps having a direct link to an optional "sidecar" record/table.