Geeklog Forums

I found a real simple photo gallery and hacked it to work with Geeklog. There are no usage restrictions or user permissions or anything that isn't simple. Just upload a directory of images and it will make thumbnails that cache, and show on your Geeklog site. For a sample (or if you just want to see the cutest kid on Earth) check here.

If anyone wants to use this hack download it here. I have tested it with both 1.3.11 and the latest CVS versions of Geeklog.

Post back here if you have any problems.

Read the included Geeklog_Readme.txt file for install instructions and the included readme.txt file for further usage instructions.

Please don't bother to comment on anything else you see on the mentalstout.com site as there is quite a bit of experimental stuff going on there and I don't want any unsolicited questions or comments about it.

Good Luck,
Gavin

---

Yes I am mental.

You know on your mentalstout site that the blah blah blah does not seem to be working and that the login looks funny. OK the login does not look funny but you sure do, no, OK I'm kidding.

Looks great for a nice simple gallery it will just rock for sure.

Thanks Doc, c'ya online sometime.

where can i change language:
-This is the main gallery directory's description.
-Currently viewing:
-Sub-Folders(1 sub-folder)

This is in the "sp_descriptions.ini" file. Each Directory and photo can have its own description by editing this file, read the readme.txt file for more instructions if you don't understand it from looking at the "sp_descriptions.ini" file.

This is in the "sp_helper_functions.php" on line 319 or so

And if I understand what you are trying to change its in the "sp_def_vars.php" on line 215 or so.

---

Yes I am mental.

thanks

In checking out the sample gallery at http://www.mentalstout.com/source/simplephpgallery/

At least on my browser (IE6), the gallery section starts almost halfway (vertically) across the page. why is this and will my install be like this? if so, how can it be fixed?

See screenshot of what I mean: Screenshot

(I tried using the "img" tag here, and it wasn't working, so after submitting, I went to edit my post and the "img" link/reference has been removed from my post automatically.....why is that?!?!)

Maybe because the page is standards compliant and IE isn't? (Couldn't resist.)

It looks fine in Firefox, Mozilla, and Konqueror.

Chuck

---

Too many hands on my time.

Yep that is why, its the theme which I haven't bothered to finish, it has nothing to do with the simple php gallery (which is also standards compliant btw, but works fine in IE despite that).

---

Yes I am mental.

Would be fine if IE wasn't such a prolific browser being used (like Opera)...but a site should still display properly for the bulk of the audience who will view it (which will typically be IE browsers -- usually a 2 to 1 ratio over a mozilla based one, which is much slower for me than IE anyway)...but I digress...

OK, I was just having a little fun at IE's expense, I'm not going to debate browsers here and risk a flame war. Everybody should use what works best for themselves.

As for whether it will work for you SmackDaddy, just give it a try. The worst that would happen is you would have to uninstall.

Chuck

---

Too many hands on my time.

I agree that the theme should work in IE but I don't have IE and I don't care if the site works for IE users right now (It's not exactly a public site anyway). Perhaps when I get more time to play with it I will make it work for IE, but until then I don't really care if it works.

---

Yes I am mental.

That's understandable/cool....I didn't realize it's not a "public site", my comment was more in line that "production sites" are sites that if you want visitors, you shouldn't exclude the majority of browsers (IE) unless you are trying to prove a point to them, in which case the visitor just wouldn't come back, they'd consider you elitist (but I am not calling you that, merely saying it for points' sake), or there may be a small percentage who might actually "convert"....

As for the whole IE/Mozilla debate, I agree....but you wouldn't have to worry about me "flaming" or whatever. I use both several browsers...mainly to test site functionality. Not everyone is a Mozilla lover...and amount of users doesn't make one browser better than another... I will say that Netscape finally got something decent going with the inclusion of both Mozilla and IE rendering from within one browser...and it's actually faster for me than Mozilla 1.7.8 and Firefox 1.0.4 ...albeit still slower than IE...

Continuing off-topic down this dark road...

I have recently given up trying to make my CSS work in IE. Every little change I made broke the layout in IE and I got fed up. I now display a block at the top of my page if you are browsing with IE explaining why things might not look quite right. [Sort of the opposite of "You must use IE to view this site" - except I'm not forcing the issue.]

Elitist? Maybe. But, for my site with its handful of users, I'm not going to waste any more time trying work around things that break IE. If I were doing something other than a hobby site, then obviouly I'd approach things a little differently...

I have been reading "The Zen of CSS Design" [which I have found quite useful and would recommend]. They often write something like this: "Here's how to do it properly. But you can't do it properly because it breaks IE. So here's a hack around it."

I can't help but wonder how different things would be if Microsoft had made IE standards compliant. Think of the time and money companies would save!

- Andy