New photogallery

Oh, the familiar view =) Hooray-hooray! - I'm still in favor of a regular grid, or at least for left alignment (in an unordered form, the eyes "break") - I want a configurable output depth, for 25, 50, 100 images per page. And, if this is implemented, the "Up" button floating at the bottom of the screen (on the right or left) is missing some fields, as it was in the gallery.

I'll make a regular one a little later. You need to adjust the number of photos, but probably not 25/50/100, but some other numbers. That's why, for example, now someone needs 25 photos per page? By selection fields question: do I need the keyword field in the photo comment (and whether to combine it with geography, as in the old gallery), do I need to combine gender and stage of development in one feature, as in the old gallery?

Fixed a bug where in some cases the transition to the next page of the selection did not occur correctly. Note: when you select the preview image size of 80px, the image files are loaded the same, but are compressed to 80 pixels on the larger side. In other words, this mode does not save traffic, it only increases the number of images visible on the page due to their size.

The number of images on the page is random =) I don't think I used the Geography/note search field. If there are no special complaints , you should leave it as it was. The field stage of development / gender confuses me with the fact that "imago" is not equal in meaning to "male" or " female "(i.e., as if it is not included in the concept of "imago"=). And although the site should not have a photo without identifying the imago / larva/egg, but you never know...

From your own position. What I didn't understand is the convenience of these innovations for myself, as a moderator. The fact is that it is important for me to immediately get to the photo page from the gallery, without making any unnecessary gestures like first expand the preview, and then click on the link that appears in order to get to the photo page and make the necessary changes there. When you click on the preview, the page with the photo will immediately open? If not, then I don't need these" dances with a tambourine " for fuck's sake. Or do I understand something wrong?

The idea is this:for moderators and other advanced users who need to open many photos in new tabs at once, there will be a separate link to the photos page. I'll finish it later.

The "u" icon in the total fot sample indicates that the definition is only up to the supraspecific taxon (i.e., subgenus and above).

We are starting experiments to combine the Insecticide gallery and search results for insect images on the Web. The first images that users HAVEN'T uploaded to the site have now been added to the new gallery. Accordingly, working with different types of images is somewhat different: 1. Photos of insects — everything is as usual 2. Photos from other sites-similar to Yandex. Pictures or Google. Images. I.e., our site stores only information about them and small thumbnails, and when you click on the image, a picture is displayed from the source site with the ability to go to this very site. But, unlike Yandex and Google, we display additional information (for example, geography), plus the search is more accurate, plus there is a link to the Insecticide taxa catalog. In addition, for such photos, you can't go to the photos on Insectpage right now, for example, to comment on it. For the future, we will do it (but, again, with previews, etc. in accordance with copyright). In addition, additional information will be published (for example, the name of the photographer) for the photos for which it is collected. As a result, the new gallery now has several more photos and, most importantly, illustrated views than the old one.

Experiments.... this, of course, is good. But only in cases where they do not affect the operation of the site. In short: we need to deal with the search/auto-substitution. It is impossible to work without it. And one more thing: You can't illustrate taxa with far-fetched images from the web. You should leave the gallery of authors registered on the site as the main one and use it to illustrate taxa. And keep the gallery of images from the network separately as information for reference. Why another garbage dump (this is when everything from everywhere is dumped in one place)?

With auto-substitutions-yes, it was a bad glitch. Now treated, everything is Ok. But check it out again, just in case. About pictures and illustrations. A) The images are not far-fetched. B) This is not a garbage dump, and the gallery does not fall everything and everywhere. You can go through the latest ones added and see the quality of the definition, and make sure for yourself. C) We have already discussed both the images from the web and the illustrations over the phone. And suddenly! Again on the same rake;--) D) Illustrations with external images in the same form, which is impossible in principle, because we do not store or publish explicitly external photos, but only their previews. Accordingly, previews will also appear on the pages of species that don't have internal photos of the Insect. But it is the preview, and not the illustrations in the form in which we are used to them here.

People who have Chrome installed as a browser, check the pliz, do large images open by clicking on small photos in the new gallery?

The latest photos may not be displayed right now, as soon as they load (approximately within half an hour), so there will be a full display (the next update is underway).

I like the idea of such a gallery. But it still feels like some kind of pop song, or something. The old gallery with its clearly constructed, even rows of photos looks more solid. What else I would like to see in addition to what was already promised: - the ability to immediately go to the original by double-clicking on the image - I found out how you can do this; - it is desirable to return the side location of the parameters interface - this is more convenient, since monitors now mostly have an aspect ratio of 16: 9 and the upper location of the interface creates the illusion of an even greater narrowness in height, besides, with a side location, it can be increased indefinitely, but with an upper location it is not (you can't push anything further than the edge of the screen- finally, add information about the size of the image in pixels to the preview (if someone needs to view a very high-quality photo of a beetle or flea, this can speed up the search), while if you put the data not against the background of the image, but add it under It will look much better with a picture of a line with data. So far, something like this.

I totally agree with Vasily!!! Why make another garbage dump??? If I need a specific taxon, I go to Google, everything is there. First of all, you need to decide how the site positions itself? How is the site designed for who and what ? I have been working with you for more than 5 years and why do I need IT now??? If there is such a gallery(it is not clear from whom and from where), I will not publish any more photos .It's just a shame for our authors. There was a specific site, a chamber site, you can say, with a fairly large, but still limited number of authors... and then it started... first, we put all the insects, okay, we ate them, well, you still have all the arthropods and shellfish here... interest is slowly lost, now they have decided to insert the whole world with photos. Guys, this way you won't attract people to the site for sure! We'll just scatter. Peter, I'm sorry for being rude, once my cat had nothing to do, but I soon sterilized it... It would be better to restore order in the taxa. How many times have I written about sailboats?... the manure is still there! It's all wrong. I appeal to the people on the site: maybe someone wants to make a site ONLY about BUTTERFLIES!!! For my part, I promise photos of a large number of species(essno not micros, but day and large night, the collection already has more than 100 boxes). PS. I know that my position will be subject to many attacks, but this is MY opinion,and I will not change it)

Alexander, it would be better to discuss this over the phone with you and Vasily. Well, until I get through, I'll write another candidate comment for deletion after personal conversations: 1.1. Google doesn't have everything. 1.2. Google is often wrong. 1.3. Google doesn't provide much information about photos. 1.4. Google doesn't automatically search for child taxa and also known names or parts of names. 2.1. I have already shown above that the result does not look like a garbage can. In addition, in the future, there will be almost as many options for editing definitions as for the native gallery. 2.2. To be another garbage dump, you need to have several more (or at least one) qualitatively similar garbage dump somewhere in the thread. 3.1. Alexander, I wrote on the site and spoke on the phone: our site turns into a SITE ONLY ABOUT BUTTERFLIES with one click on the "Lepidoptera" button, which is available on every (almost) page of the site. In addition, you can set the setting in the LC so that you don't have to press anything, and always when you go under your acc, you would only see butterflies. You can also configure the site not to be about butterflies, but only about a sailboat-also in the personal account. 3.1.1 The new gallery section is a test one, so this setting doesn't work there. When the section is fully operational, it will be triggered there as well. In the meantime, we will select the Lepidoptera taxon, and the result will be similar. 3.2. We have quite a few Camera sites. And there are personal ones. And about cabbage leaves you can find information on ten sources of krajada. But there are no voluminous ones. In Russian-in general, in non-Russian-almost. 3.3. Work on creating a new gallery does not affect the work on improving the taxon tree. Because this is done, to a large extent, by different people. 4. In my memory, your position has never been attacked.

We discussed it with Vasily on Skype, everything is normal. Alexander, tomorrow I will dial you in the phone. p. S. Added more new photos.

I made a left-and right-aligned version. A more advanced template is in progress.

I apologize very much, maybe it was already discussed. What if I return the Lepidopter's domain?ru? Make links to the main site there, and leave all content "lepidoptera".

What's wrong with the switch at the top? Not really. You just need to do your job calmly and thoughtfully. Throwing things from one corner to another won't do anything.

I see that there are already people who don't really like this development of the project, to put it mildly. But it will not be good if they feel cheated, you need the site to be able to satisfy everyone, or at least almost everyone. In this particular case, I suggest adding another switch in the gallery interface panel, which would enable the mode of showing photos only from our site. You can even make a basic version by default, and let the gallery mode with a photo "it is not clear from whom and from where" be turned on/off by this switch, so that a person who does not find a photo of the desired taxon within our site can turn on the mode of showing photos from all over the Internet with one click (well, in the sense, from. M. serious sources that can be trusted with 95% confidence). If the site continues to expand its taxonomic specialization, I will be happy to do so. If someone doesn't like to see everyone in a row - the settings in your personal account will help you, I've already checked on leaf beetles and scoops, everything works great, there was a strong feeling that the site is really only about leaf beetles or only about a scoop.

So I'm also interested in the issue restrictions by taxon button. It's a good thing, and it's been working for a long time... Thank you for your review about it, and then I started to get the impression that this panel is not visible to anyone at all. As for the checkbox of selecting only photos uploaded to the site in the gallery, we will definitely do it. Perhaps we'll even visually mark whether the photo is "internal" or "external". But by default, all photos should be displayed. As for interfaces, the location of selection parameters, etc. — we'll think about it later. In this sense, it is much easier to change something than the concept as a whole.

We talked to Alexander on the phone, and it turned out that in general everything is OK, and there are no radical objections yet. Just in case, I will once again write down some of the features of the site's operation here: 1. Butterflies vs Nebabochki: 1.1. For unregistered users or registered users who want to temporarily restrict the output of information about unnecessary taxa: at the top of any page, click the button with the name of the required squad (Lepidoptera, Coleoptera, etc.), then in the gallery, in the news and all the right news block, on the forum (except for the all-members page). last comments) — only information about the selected squad will be displayed everywhere. To return to normal mode, just click the "All units" button or close/open the browser. In this case, the active / taxon button will be highlighted in bold (by default, "All units"). 1.2. For registered users: in settings in your Merchant Profile, you can select an order (or any other taxon from the genus and above, including a family or tribe), and then all the time (even if you close/open the browser), if you are logged in, you will see only information about the selected taxon on the site (that is, they chose pigeons, and there will be no beetles, no nymphalids). To return to the default mode, you need to remove the corresponding entry in your Merchant Profile (in settings). You can also view the current taxon selection setting there. To make this all work and for the feed of recent comments, I will try to make improvements in the foreseeable future. In the meantime, you can use the general forum page and its subsections "Taxa" and"Photos". 2. External photos (search results) vs Internal photos (uploaded to the site): 1. I make a check mark for showing / not showing external data, it will be 2 soon. External resources are not searched using Yandex algorithms/Google, and on their own, specialized. There are almost no errors (except for human ones, of course, i.e. when the person uploading the photo himself specified the wrong taxon). 3. I also plan to designate external photos in the general sample. 4. As for Yandex/From Google, then to theirs .Images are similar to the technical implementation of the project — in accordance with copyright, we do not publish the actual photos from external sources, but only display previews and information about them with the ability to open the original. 5. Soon, external photos will be able to be annotated and transferred to other taxa in the same way as internal photos. However, clause 4. remains fully valid. 6. You will be able to offer your favorite sites (and even individual photos) for indexing. Thus, you will not need to crawl a bunch of sites every time in search of the most trivial information. For the first pass, the image search section will be sufficient.

Question about the types of photos in the gallery

Based on the latest update of the new gallery (but also relevant for the old one): Do I need to enter new photo types? 1. Landscapes (this has already been discussed, and probably needs to be) 2. Genitals (also discussed, but still) 3. Distribution maps in the form of images 4. Scans of primary descriptions. Now on the page https://insecta.pro/photos?page=2750" target="_blank">https://insecta.pro/photos?page=2750 just added photos for all these genres plus the usual photos of butterflies, so you can clearly figure out what it might look like. Of course, if you do all this, then there will be a selection setting (to see / not see certain types). I am waiting for your opinions.

To Peter's last post: 1. Landscapes, well, I don't think this is relevant , trample a whole shaft of photos with beautiful(ugly )pictures . I can give you at least five hundred photos of land in three weeks. Taya to give, but who needs it? 2. Genitals-well, this is for a very narrow circle of people, I don't even know, maybe Pozhogin will be interested in 4-5 more people. 3. Do you already have the cards, or did you have something special in mind? 4. But be careful with scans, no one has canceled copyright yet, they will be sued.

Sometimes it is necessary to post an explanatory picture/photo in the comments or on the forum. Now it seems that you can only post such photos on third-party file storage sites? It would be convenient to upload such photos to the forum directly from the computer.

1. Photos of biotopes. Definitely worth it, because an experienced photo specialist can say much more than using a dry phrase like "feather grass-tipchak steppe"or" bayrachny forest". In principle, in the future it will even be possible to create something like an atlas of biotopes with descriptions and photos, and even introduce the possibility of linking species to biotopes. 2. Genitals. It is absolutely necessary, because this is an important diagnostic feature that helps well in cases where it is difficult or impossible to distinguish species from each other in appearance. 3. Maps. I think they will be superfluous. All the same, the areas on them are marked very schematically. Textual information about the biotope where the species lives, along with a list of regions where this species was marked, will be more than enough. 4. Scans of primary descriptions. If they will be on other sites, and we have only previews and links, then it's normal. But you will need to place them directly on our site with caution.

New photos have been added to the search, especially a good increase in tropical butterflies. Accordingly, the sample page with maps, etc. went to the side (updated the link in the comments).

I can give you at least five hundred photos of land in three weeks. Taya to give, but who needs it?

I think the point is that these images should be taken of the exact landscapes where you were caught./removed this type of insect.

Genitals - well, this is for a very narrow circle of people, I don't even know, maybe Pozhogin will be interested in 4-5 more people.

There are no such photos yet, and people/specialists are less interested in participating. While there are few specialists involved, there are no such photos;--)

Do you already have the maps, or did you have something special in mind?

I was referring specifically to photos of maps from external sites. For example, here it is.

But be careful with scans, no one has canceled copyright yet, they will be sued.

Of course, this item is only for external images, and they will not be included in the internal gallery (unless the authors upload them themselves).

3. Maps. I think they will be superfluous. All the same, the areas on them are marked very schematically. Textual information about the biotope where the species lives, along with a list of regions where this species was marked, will be more than enough.

See the example above.

Right here: https://insecta.pro/taxonomy/45561" target="_blank">https://insecta.pro/taxonomy/45561 you can see an example of how search results for external images can look on the view page (see the right block). In addition, you can add a preview of 160 px of one of the images (random, here we will not put anything down with our hands) in place of the main illustration. What do you think? P.S. This example only works from the link above. For all other types, the results are not taken from the search: for now, we are only testing them.

Yes, there is an interesting map on the link, such, of course, are needed. By the way, what kind of butterfly does this belong to? There's just one tag right in my city hanging. P.S. I suggest you highlight another category of photos - "parade photo". This is when an insect in good condition (in the sense that it looks like it is alive) is perfectly spread out, shot in good quality from the perfect angle and placed on a neutral background (usually white), well, for example, like this (see below). So far, however, only beetles are removed in this way, for some reason this has not affected other insects. With flies and wasps-it is clear there, their wings are transparent and therefore a section of the original background will still be visible through them, but why lepidoptera and bedbugs are not removed in this way is unclear. Although, in principle, a well-spread fly on a clean white sheet with uniform lighting will look great, so the original background will not need to be removed.

you can preview 160 px of one of the images (random, here we will not put anything down with our hands)

I don't want a random photo on the view page. At least until you come up with a clearly visible and immediately understandable designation that the photo is from an external site. Because there may be unpleasant moments associated with these accidents. Yes, and not comme il faut is when a photo of the view "jumps": I updated the page, but the photo changed (even for visual memory, this is bad - a person gets confused). The example itself is approx. Imho in this direction and need to move the generalization of information. Somehow it would still be with the text about the form to check )))

By the way, what kind of butterfly does this belong to? There's just one placemark right in my city hanging.

Photo from here: https://insecta.pro/photos?cap=Carcharodus+alceae

P. S. I propose to highlight another category of photos - "parade photo".

May. But later. Now there will be a lot of tasks on geography and other primary features.

As for Lindra brasus. The display system is quite suitable. But the gap between the thumbnails should somehow be made smaller, otherwise it is more than 1/3 of their size and is very noticeable. For the same reason, it makes sense to remove all graphic effects (shadows, additional borders, etc.), leaving the border as a 1-px-thick strip. Ideally, there should be nothing distracting from the image. Also, a preview in a square frame looks better than a random rectangular one. However, this has already been discussed here.

There are no shadows there — they are in the image itself. As for the distance-send me a screenshot to see how it looks like for you.

Peter, question: the image of a banal, well, for example, a swallowtail or a proboscis - there are more than 40 of them on the site, of the same type. When adding external photos, it will turn out to be min. > 200-300. What size will the page look like? Or will you still limit it to a finite number of photos? For landscapes, I think you still need to select it in a separate folder, without clogging up the view page.This will be especially true for the tropics, where there is no clearing, then a new landscape, and then you can get carried away with beautiful pictures, and if you still have a loved one in the center...)))

Alexander, the question about photo types concerns the shared gallery, not the view pages. On the view pages, this can always be adjusted (if there are corresponding photos in the gallery). Offhand, there, of course, you need to limit the number of displayed photos with the ability to go to the full list. Ideally-with the division of photos into the main and additional galleries (as discussed earlier, not to be confused with internal and external), not in idelay-just cropping the first N results.

For landscapes and biotopes in general, you can somehow make a separate reference section later and link species to them.

For landscapes and biotopes in general, you can somehow make a separate reference section later and link species to them.

Option. But is there a well-established system of biotopes? That is, I am more concerned about such a moment that, for example, the forest tundra near Iremel in the South?The Urals are not equal to the forest tundra on the Putorana plateau. Including the composition of the flora...