What if the large images were (optionally?) not displayed in the HTML gallery?
The main gallery page could show thumbs and corresponding metadata (left to right, 1 row per image) and deep link directly into the corresponding flash image URLs.
Less of a standalone site and more of a metadata backend to feed the flash, helping to protect the original web images by simply not showing them openly in HTML.
----
I'll comp an example of what I have in mind later tonight and post it here -;)
X3Photo Gallery Forums
X3 Photo Gallery Support Forums
I understand what your saying ...
From google's perspective it doesn't really make a difference where the link to the flash gallery is, as long as it exists. Your suggestion would however help to protect the photos, although it would by no means prevent people from being able to find the location if they tried.
From google's perspective it doesn't really make a difference where the link to the flash gallery is, as long as it exists. Your suggestion would however help to protect the photos, although it would by no means prevent people from being able to find the location if they tried.
using lightview will prevent the images from being openly displayed in HTML (i.e. "rightclickable"), however, i'm wondering how this affects the search engines? i don't think image descriptions will get indexed if lightview is used...any thoughts from you developers?
tom
<a href="http://tomfluegge.com">tomfluegge.com</a>
<a href="http://tomfluegge.com">tomfluegge.com</a>
Never heard that lightview prevents you from rightclick, especially since it uses usual links to pictures and you can just shift-click on thumbnail and image will open directly in new window.
And yes, google indexes them just fine because they are usual links.
And we support both lightbox2 and lightview for html version of imagevueX2 gallery.
And yes, google indexes them just fine because they are usual links.
And we support both lightbox2 and lightview for html version of imagevueX2 gallery.
firedev.com