Profile Photos are not in Date Order now

Discussion in Technical Forum started by Linda May Rumble, Sep 15, 2018
LR
Linda May Rumble
  website
Very annoyingly the photos are no longer in date order anymore.

For over the past ten years, when I add an image to a profile on my Tree, it will slot into the correct position according to date order; or if I have not added a date, it will appear at the top, as the first photo, to remind me to add a date if I can.

Sadly now the images are randomly slotting in anywhere and the images are no longer in date order or the order is reversed with undated photos to the bottom... WHY?

I have added a Related Link example.
Related Link:Click Here

AS
Alan Scott
  website
Just had a look at my photo's and I don't have a problem with what Tribalpages have done. In fact I like it more. In my site a persons photo's remain in date order except the latest are at the top and oldest are at the bottom. Those with no date are at the very bottom.

It is still possible to sort an album of photo's into photo date, name or upload date.

Well done Tribalpages as far as I am concerned. Of course everyone has there own preferences for these things. I just happen to prefer the change that Tribalpages have made. Sorry to say that Linda.

Kind regards,

Alan

IM
Ian Marr
  website
Just had a look at my photo's and I don't have a problem with what Tribalpages have done. In fact I like it more. In my site a persons photo's remain in date order except the latest are at more ...
the top and oldest are at the bottom. Those with no date are at the very bottom. It is still possible to sort an album of photo's into photo date, name or upload date. Well done Tribalpages as far as I am concerned. Of course everyone has there own preferences for these things. I just happen to prefer the change that Tribalpages have made. Sorry to say that Linda. Kind regards, Ala
Must disagree with you Alan. What is possibly wrong with having images displayed in date order, earliest first. It doesn't make sense to do it any other way. When things defy logic (for example, US date structures) then I just find it nonsensical.

For undated images, yes, I couldn't care whether they come first or are placed last. Having them first does serve the purpose of easily identifying those that need a date (someone has, say, 60 photos with ten undated - why make us scroll through to check on the undated ones?)

Regards,

Ian Marr

AS
Alan Scott
  website
Must disagree with you Alan. What is possibly wrong with having images displayed in date order, earliest first. It doesn't make sense to do it any other way. When things defy logic (for example, more ...
US date structures) then I just find it nonsensical. For undated images, yes, I couldn't care whether they come first or are placed last. Having them first does serve the purpose of easily identifying those that need a date (someone has, say, 60 photos with ten undated - why make us scroll through to check on the undated ones?) Regards, Ian Mar
Ian.

It only takes a second to scroll down to the bottom unless you have some individual with a few thousand photo's. I have about 500 of my wife and it only takes one second to scroll down to the bottom. I don't consider the time factor as a problem. If the photo's, excluding undated, are not in date order, then the problem is how they were dated.

I never suggested it was wrong to have the earliest photo's at the top. Whether earliest is first or last is, of course, a matter of personal preference. I just prefer the latest at the top. I don't think that's nonsensical as you suggest. You prefer them the other way around and that is, of course, your preference. I have no real objection to that if the majority of members prefer that option. However I am quite happy with what Tribalpages have done.

What will be nonsensical is members making this a major issue.

Cheers,

Alan

IM
Ian Marr
  website
Ian. It only takes a second to scroll down to the bottom unless you have some individual with a few thousand photo's. I have about 500 of my wife and it only takes one second to scroll down to the more ...
bottom. I don't consider the time factor as a problem. If the photo's, excluding undated, are not in date order, then the problem is how they were dated. I never suggested it was wrong to have the earliest photo's at the top. Whether earliest is first or last is, of course, a matter of personal preference. I just prefer the latest at the top. I don't think that's nonsensical as you suggest. You prefer them the other way around and that is, of course, your preference. I have no real objection to that if the majority of members prefer that option. However I am quite happy with what Tribalpages have done. What will be nonsensical is members making this a major issue. Cheers, Ala
I take your point about how long it may take to scroll through multiple images. However, imagine that among that 500, or even 100, you wanted to access the various pictures relating to a marriage. If they were in some logical order, they would not only be easier to find, but you would be less likely to miss one. If there were also images of the 1841, 51, 61, 71, 81, 91, 1901 & 11 census returns and you needed to access a particular one - much easier if they were in order.

I did not say that any particular order for undated images was nonsensical. In fact, as I stated, whether they are placed first or last to a large extent is immaterial, though I preferred them to be first.

Dated photos not appearing in date order has nothing to do with how they are dated. It appears to be quite haphazard.

What is especially nonsensical is the situation we now find ourselves in - images in any order

I do think that the order in which photos are displayed IS a major issue as it materially affects how easy it is to find information and thus leads to unnecessary errors.

Regards,

Ian Marr

AS
Alan Scott
  website
I take your point about how long it may take to scroll through multiple images. However, imagine that among that 500, or even 100, you wanted to access the various pictures relating to a marriage. If more ...
they were in some logical order, they would not only be easier to find, but you would be less likely to miss one. If there were also images of the 1841, 51, 61, 71, 81, 91, 1901 & 11 census returns and you needed to access a particular one - much easier if they were in order. I did not say that any particular order for undated images was nonsensical. In fact, as I stated, whether they are placed first or last to a large extent is immaterial, though I preferred them to be first. Dated photos not appearing in date order has nothing to do with how they are dated. It appears to be quite haphazard. What is especially nonsensical is the situation we now find ourselves in - images in any order I do think that the order in which photos are displayed IS a major issue as it materially affects how easy it is to find information and thus leads to unnecessary errors. Regards, Ian Mar
Ian.

You raise a second issue here. You mention images. Lets keep photo's and images as separate subjects. This matter originally started with the order of a persons PHOTO's being reversed. Now it appears to be including IMAGES (pdf I presume).

PHOTO's

Firstly as you know it is the tree owner who has the responsibility of dating the PHOTO's and, to use your words, put them in a logical order. Unless I have read you incorrectly you are suggesting that Tribalpages are somehow putting PHOTO's out of date order as entered by the owner. If they are fully and properly dated by the owner and then do not come up in date order then that certainly is the time to complain.

From what I see in my site I have no evidence to suggest that your statement that "dated photos not appearing in date order has nothing to do with how they are dated. It appears to be quite haphazard" is not correct. Do you have some examples of this ?.

At present I have seen nothing worth complaining about as far as my PHOTO's are concerned. The only photo's I have seen in my tree that have not been in their true date is where I did not fully date them properly. I blame myself, not Tribalpages.

IMAGES (pdf)

IMAGES (Pdf) is a different matter. I fully agree with you about IMAGES.

To quote you again "what is especially nonsensical is the situation we now find ourselves in - images in any order".

I could not agree with you more. IMAGES was an great new feature but is certainly spoiled by our not being able to use some satisfactory order. The present order of just date submitted is not good. You can go to "Media" > "Files" but my eye does not pick up the colour print as easy as when looking for a photo. In a persons notes you can hover over the icon to find the subject but that is very time consuming if there are lot of icons for one person.

Maybe Tribalpages will look at that but don't hold your breath waiting.

IM
Ian Marr
  website
Ian. You raise a second issue here. You mention images. Lets keep photo's and images as separate subjects. This matter originally started with the order of a persons PHOTO's being reversed. more ...
Now it appears to be including IMAGES (pdf I presume). PHOTO's Firstly as you know it is the tree owner who has the responsibility of dating the PHOTO's and, to use your words, put them in a logical order. Unless I have read you incorrectly you are suggesting that Tribalpages are somehow putting PHOTO's out of date order as entered by the owner. If they are fully and properly dated by the owner and then do not come up in date order then that certainly is the time to complain. From what I see in my site I have no evidence to suggest that your statement that "dated photos not appearing in date order has nothing to do with how they are dated. It appears to be quite haphazard" is not correct. Do you have some examples of this ?. At present I have seen nothing worth complaining about as far as my PHOTO's are concerned. The only photo's I have seen in my tree that have not been in their true date is where I did not fully date them properly. I blame myself, not Tribalpages. IMAGES (pdf) IMAGES (Pdf) is a different matter. I fully agree with you about IMAGES. To quote you again "what is especially nonsensical is the situation we now find ourselves in - images in any order". I could not agree with you more. IMAGES was an great new feature but is certainly spoiled by our not being able to use some satisfactory order. The present order of just date submitted is not good. You can go to "Media" > "Files" but my eye does not pick up the colour print as easy as when looking for a photo. In a persons notes you can hover over the icon to find the subject but that is very time consuming if there are lot of icons for one person. Maybe Tribalpages will look at that but don't hold your breath waiting
Just to sort out any confusion, when I say images I mean photos as you would define them (jpg). I differentiate because some people picture pictures as being like those we take with a camera and don't regard an image (say, of a census return) as a "true" picture.

I will snip an example page as I work through my data entry which, hopefully, will show what I mean.

I had my cataracts done a few years ago. Brilliant. Went from wearing glasses all the time to not needing them at all. In medium - long vision, I found that depth and colour perception were also greatly improved. After a few years, however, I find I am back to wearing glasses again.

Regards,

Ian Marr

LR
Linda May Rumble
  website
Just to sort out any confusion, when I say images I mean photos as you would define them (jpg). I differentiate because some people picture pictures as being like those we take with a camera and don't more ...
regard an image (say, of a census return) as a "true" picture. I will snip an example page as I work through my data entry which, hopefully, will show what I mean. I had my cataracts done a few years ago. Brilliant. Went from wearing glasses all the time to not needing them at all. In medium - long vision, I found that depth and colour perception were also greatly improved. After a few years, however, I find I am back to wearing glasses again. Regards, Ian Mar
Hello Ian,

I can see your point that you may prefer images & documents in reverse date order, rather than in date order, but the issue for me is that the images without dates are put to the bottom and that means for me that the DNA Tree Match Charts I have created to show people who their closest shared ancestor is have also been put to the bottom & are out of sight for those with several images/documents/photographs.

So I am now having to go through countless DNA Matches on my Tree and adding 2018 as the date in order to put those images to the top.... with the thought in mind that TP could just decide in a whim to reverse the order again and I would have to remove the 2018 so that the DNA Charts can be seen.

There are sixteen of us in the family & extended family who are involved in the Ancestry DNA project - and some of us have found over 20 DNA Matches - so just displaying one would not solve the issue. I have put an example link below... where I have put the Maternal DNA Matches to the to and left the Paternal ones to the bottom, because we have just had a Calvert & Jones Family Reunion.
Related Link:Click Here

IM
Ian Marr
  website
Hello Ian, I can see your point that you may prefer images & documents in reverse date order, rather than in date order, but the issue for me is that the images without dates are put to the bottom and more ...
that means for me that the DNA Tree Match Charts I have created to show people who their closest shared ancestor is have also been put to the bottom & are out of sight for those with several images/documents/photographs. So I am now having to go through countless DNA Matches on my Tree and adding 2018 as the date in order to put those images to the top.... with the thought in mind that TP could just decide in a whim to reverse the order again and I would have to remove the 2018 so that the DNA Charts can be seen. There are sixteen of us in the family & extended family who are involved in the Ancestry DNA project - and some of us have found over 20 DNA Matches - so just displaying one would not solve the issue. I have put an example link below... where I have put the Maternal DNA Matches to the to and left the Paternal ones to the bottom, because we have just had a Calvert & Jones Family Reunion
Actually, I prefer them in date order (earliest first) NOT in reverse order (latest first). As far as undated are concerned, not fussed whether they come first or last.
L
Les
  website
Actually, I prefer them in date order (earliest first) NOT in reverse order (latest first). As far as undated are concerned, not fussed whether they come first or last.
Hi Ian , you say that you would prefer the photographs EARLIEST first and not concerned about the UNDATED

.

As T S are using EXIF and METADATA to date the photographs it is possible that your UNDATED are not picked up by this as possibly they are not Digital , and you are missing out on these

So you should look at these and DATE them yourself.

As far as DATE ORDER these should show LATEST first as we live by tomorrow and yesterday.

Your EARLIEST first could show Victorianer first and yesterday at the end of hundreds of photographs.

As EXIF and METADATA at the moment only pick up .jpeg and TIFF using Digital you will find your old prints from say 35 mm although .jpeg will not be dated by T S so you can possibly find these in the undated, although they should be with the main order of photographs

All the Best

Les

LR
Linda May Rumble
  website
Hi Ian , you say that you would prefer the photographs EARLIEST first and not concerned about the UNDATED . As T S are using EXIF and METADATA to date the photographs it is possible that your UNDATED more ...
are not picked up by this as possibly they are not Digital , and you are missing out on these So you should look at these and DATE them yourself. As far as DATE ORDER these should show LATEST first as we live by tomorrow and yesterday. Your EARLIEST first could show Victorianer first and yesterday at the end of hundreds of photographs. As EXIF and METADATA at the moment only pick up .jpeg and TIFF using Digital you will find your old prints from say 35 mm although .jpeg will not be dated by T S so you can possibly find these in the undated, although they should be with the main order of photographs All the Best Le
Dear Les

What a shame that we cannot have a choice.

My images are not just photographs - I have trees & charts which have many dates on them and would much prefer them to be at the top... So now it seems to keep these interesting documents at the top eg. DNA verification - I will have to go through every year and redate them which is such a waste of valuable time.

Many family members may not realise that they have to scroll right through to the bottom of their images to see their DNA Matches - which of course include many dates!

I suppose I will have to put up with this new undemocratic imposition which we were not notified about.

I find this change very disappointing.

See this DNA Matches example:

https://www.tribalpages.com/tribe/browse?userid=p0tter&view=66&bview=64&mview=0&pid=4117&bpid=4117&photoid=6861905&rand=600926076
Related Link:Click Here

L
Les
  website
Dear Les What a shame that we cannot have a choice. My images are not just photographs - I have trees & charts which have many dates on them and would much prefer them to be at the top... So now it seems more ...
to keep these interesting documents at the top eg. DNA verification - I will have to go through every year and redate them which is such a waste of valuable time. Many family members may not realise that they have to scroll right through to the bottom of their images to see their DNA Matches - which of course include many dates! I suppose I will have to put up with this new undemocratic imposition which we were not notified about. I find this change very disappointing. See this DNA Matches example: https://www.tribalpages.com/tribe/browse?userid=p0tter&view=66&bview=64&mview=0&pid=4117&bpid=4117&photoid=6861905&rand=60092607
Hi Linda, as we have tree choices Sort by Photo Date Sort by Upload Date Sort by Names.

As sort by Photo Date shows latest First, would any of the other two choices help you

Just to let you know, no one can see your Link as you have your site closed in Privacy

Regards

Les

LR
Linda May Rumble
  website
Hi Linda, as we have tree choices Sort by Photo Date Sort by Upload Date Sort by Names. As sort by Photo Date shows latest First, would any of the other two choices help you Just to let you know, more ...
no one can see your Link as you have your site closed in Privacy Regards Le
Hi Les,

Just writing to let you know that I have removed the Privacy Setting from my website so that you will be able to see the queries I have sent regarding these changes to our Photo Albums and Profile Photo sets... Many of the profile photos on my website can no longer be seen - When you try to click to open them, only the text I have written and the names they refer to can be seen - the images themselves are no longer visible.

As for the choice of three options in the Photo Albums... I have not changed mine (out of fear of creating more problems) - I have just checked through some of the missing images that were not visible earlier in the DNA Photo Album and found that the issue with those I have rechecked seems to have been corrected - So Thanks Very Much to whoever has sorted that problem out for me.

I am happy for all those that like the new photo order, it just does not suit my needs.

Enjoy!

Kindest regards, Linda
Related Link:Click Here

AS
Alan Scott
  website
I take your point about how long it may take to scroll through multiple images. However, imagine that among that 500, or even 100, you wanted to access the various pictures relating to a marriage. If more ...
they were in some logical order, they would not only be easier to find, but you would be less likely to miss one. If there were also images of the 1841, 51, 61, 71, 81, 91, 1901 & 11 census returns and you needed to access a particular one - much easier if they were in order. I did not say that any particular order for undated images was nonsensical. In fact, as I stated, whether they are placed first or last to a large extent is immaterial, though I preferred them to be first. Dated photos not appearing in date order has nothing to do with how they are dated. It appears to be quite haphazard. What is especially nonsensical is the situation we now find ourselves in - images in any order I do think that the order in which photos are displayed IS a major issue as it materially affects how easy it is to find information and thus leads to unnecessary errors. Regards, Ian Mar
Sorry one error in my previous message. I used the words NOT CORRECT. That paragraph should read

"From what I see in my site I have no evidence to suggest that your statement that "dated photos not appearing in date order has nothing to do with how they are dated. It appears to be quite haphazard" IS CORRECT. Do you have some examples of this ?."

Too much typing for me at present. I have just had Cataracts removed from both eyes. Long sight is brilliant but I will have to get new reading glasses in 4 weeks time.

LR
Linda May Rumble
  website
Sorry one error in my previous message. I used the words NOT CORRECT. That paragraph should read "From what I see in my site I have no evidence to suggest that your statement that "dated photos more ...
not appearing in date order has nothing to do with how they are dated. It appears to be quite haphazard" IS CORRECT. Do you have some examples of this ?." Too much typing for me at present. I have just had Cataracts removed from both eyes. Long sight is brilliant but I will have to get new reading glasses in 4 weeks time
I think when I originally sent this query which took several days to appear, that they were in the process of this changeover.

I have been checking through some of the profiles on my website and the images are now all in reverse order with the most recent at the top and any undated - as my DNA Match images are, have been moved to the bottom and could be missed by those in my family who may not take the time to look through their ancestors images.

See the attached example of my Great Great Grandfather's images with his DNA Tree Links at the bottom of the page.

The point is that relatives - who do not realise that we have DNA Matches for him, are far more likely to see the DNA Trees if they are top of the List, rather than at the bottom.... so maybe I have to change them every fewyears not to ensure they appear first.
Related Link:Click Here

L
Les
  website
Just had a look at my photo's and I don't have a problem with what Tribalpages have done. In fact I like it more. In my site a persons photo's remain in date order except the latest are at more ...
the top and oldest are at the bottom. Those with no date are at the very bottom. It is still possible to sort an album of photo's into photo date, name or upload date. Well done Tribalpages as far as I am concerned. Of course everyone has there own preferences for these things. I just happen to prefer the change that Tribalpages have made. Sorry to say that Linda. Kind regards, Ala
Hi Alan it has always been this way ever since I had quite a few Arguments with TS to sort out this out, when you were quite prepared to accept just part of it working . At that time I pointed out that if a program is to work it should be all or nothng.

The correct way is LATEST first.

TP listened to me and corrected it all

All the best

Les

IM
Ian Marr
  website
Hi Alan it has always been this way ever since I had quite a few Arguments with TS to sort out this out, when you were quite prepared to accept just part of it working . At that time I pointed out that more ...
if a program is to work it should be all or nothng. The correct way is LATEST first. TP listened to me and corrected it all All the best Le
Les,

Don't be so dogmatic - earliest first, latest first is just an opinion.

I happen to think that earliest first is more logical - as I've said earlier, you wouldn't show burial before death before marriage, etc. but you are happy to show photos that way. Latest first has no logic at all to it, a bit like US dates.

MD
Martin Dismore
  website
Les, Don't be so dogmatic - earliest first, latest first is just an opinion. I happen to think that earliest first is more logical - as I've said earlier, you wouldn't show burial before more ...
death before marriage, etc. but you are happy to show photos that way. Latest first has no logic at all to it, a bit like US dates
Is it possible to change the date order to earliest first?
L
Les
  website
Les, Don't be so dogmatic - earliest first, latest first is just an opinion. I happen to think that earliest first is more logical - as I've said earlier, you wouldn't show burial before more ...
death before marriage, etc. but you are happy to show photos that way. Latest first has no logic at all to it, a bit like US dates
Hi Ian if you read this correctly, this was to do with the programming, that I was trying to get corrected by the programmers. Nothing to do which was the correct order, to suit individual taste.

No I am not being dogmatic, and I am surprised that you believe I am.

The trouble is, when a point is raised on FORUM to many people jump in, although this point should not concern them, unless they read the entry, as it should be read.

All the Best

Les

L
Les
  website
A few years ago the Photgraph Abums three SORT BY were not working.

After quite a while asking TS to sort this out, the decided to add the YEAR. I told them that this was not good enough, as we needed MONTH and DAY, as YEAR only mixed the SEASONS.

Alan then entered the FORUM and was quite pleased to accept YEAR only, until he realised the SEASONS.

I kept on asking TS to add the DAY and MONTH, which finally they did.

So what you see today is correct thanks to TS and myself persevering for months

So Thank ALAN TS and MYSELF

All the best

Les