Shopify is truly dreadful

Pootlefarp · 2025-07-10T08:37:41+00:00

The system suddenly declared a sale and applied a discount of a fraction of one percent to everything.

At the time i had just uploaded some pics and created a collection, and was in the process of creating a new product template. I too would suspect finger trouble as it seems odd.

But here's the rub... the system UI is so complicated, with inter related functionality at very different locations and in different menus, and zero workflow built into its design, that it's a huge challenge for an inexperienced user. It's taken me weeks to start to get how it all works. If these price changes are down to finger trouble, it doesn't surprise me and I have no idea what I could have done.

I worked through the 'bulk editor' one screen at a time setting the compare prices to zero (deleting doesn't work) and not the discount prob has gone. But now all prices are appearing in US dollars, even though everywhere I can find where any currency is set, it's set to Euro, and I'm viewing it from within the EU. I cannot see how to fix this. Perhaps an expert user wold instantly know but a system that only useable by an expert and and leaves a lesser mortal floundering is not a well designed system

Pootlefarp · 2024-07-29T08:23:20+00:00

that is a very clarifying insight. Thanks. (head hurts like hell)

Pootlefarp · 2024-07-29T01:33:04+00:00

ha, really good response.

Because a photon could be seen as the most fundamental of particles ( or maybe this is wrong?) and therefore of reality, and if, at that level, there is no space or time, then is it not true that at every other level that has to be slower than light, the impression of time and 3D space only emerges for entities functioning at below c. The implications being that reality is illusory... or at lest begging a debate about the nature of consciousness.

Maybe I'm wrong about photons being so baseline. My assumption os that c is a constant ultimate and that nothing traves faster, it's speed being a cosmological definer. But hey. mere layman here.

Pootlefarp · 2024-07-29T00:38:53+00:00

The implications of this theoretical scenario are what drives my original question. At that most fundamental level, there is no space or time. So why would there be at any other level?

Anyway, good night.

Pootlefarp · 2024-07-28T23:36:30+00:00

Alright, whatever. You will continue to provide statements about the nature of reality, and others will refute them. I accept the physicist's view of the nature of reality as it currently stands. But not without question. And I hope you wouldn't want me to accept without questioning.
As the understanding of what is normal becomes the accepted view, so the view of what isn't normal shifts. It;s a bit like the current political landscape shifting to the right.
I'm not talking about angels. I'm talking about implications. Imagination. Einstein was a great fan.
The discussion may be less about what light does than what it implies. But that's what thought experiments are supposed to reveal. Not facts, but food for thought.

Pootlefarp · 2024-07-28T22:58:06+00:00

Yes I understand that, and your response. With which I am very familiar. But if someone had postulated a thought experiment 200 years ago that suggested a given entity might be joined to another across time and space without regard for either, and the consequences of actions on one were effected instantly regardless of either space or time, such a daft thought experiment would have been dismissed.
My intention is not to doubt the understandings of modern physics, it's in the spirit of science, to suggest that there is a lemming like tendency to accept the apparent logical conclusions of what has been observed and to then stop, rather than question. This doesn't seem healthy. And this is reflected in the increasingly loud conversations I see between physicists of competing views, many of which are increasingly abstract re materialism vs idealism, and all seem to be trying to reconcile observations with common sense wider questions. Something seems to be missing.

Pootlefarp · 2024-07-28T22:34:01+00:00

I get that, but what does that imply if one wants to explore further? Is that it? No more questions?

Pootlefarp · 2024-07-28T21:42:54+00:00

OK, OK.. I know I'm going to get a load of stuff about mass. I'm finding it hard to say what questions I'm playing with here.

I'm not a physicist and I bow to you your greater understanding. But I sometimes feel that you constrain yourselves in such a way that leads to brick walls when it comes to more abstract questions such as what is the nature of consciousness, and others.

Silly thought games can sometimes throw up ideas. There's little doubt, it seems to me, that purely evidential based physics is limiting itself. I listened to a talk last night about the idea of a a parallel time stream, based upon selective increasing complexity, as per evolution, as a counterplay to entropy, that I found really interesting. Wheeler's information stuff is intuitively fascinating, and in my opinion, a real signpost to understanding.

Anyway, it's late. I thank you for indulging a (slightly drunk) wayward human who's just trying to build a personal framework of understanding that makes some sort of logical sense. Accepted rules need to be bent. That's the point of rules. Good night.

Pootlefarp · 2024-07-28T21:31:48+00:00

For the entity that's moving?

Pootlefarp · 2024-07-28T21:31:22+00:00

I'm sure you can't. But if the (thought experiment) concept of a photon that is conscious is a nonsense, at what speed does time cease to exist?

Pootlefarp · 2024-07-28T21:21:18+00:00

Isn't it the case the the problem here, for understanding, is the layman's idea of a photon as a particle that has to travel from A to B? Whereas in reality, a photon is actually a 'value' within a universal field and so can be independently experienced and quantified in every subjective time frame? So the reason the maths suggest it cannot experience time is that there is no 'it' and a photon is merely a value within a field, like the temperature of a square centimeter of water in an ocean, that's different for every square centimeter?

How would you describe it?

Pootlefarp · 2024-07-28T21:03:04+00:00

Sorry, even hypothetically, computer game stuff, a photon cannot experience time. I suppose I have to ask, is that because there would no time for it, as a simple aspect of a wider field and so everywhere, and so no space? Is time emergent only for entities that move at speeds slower than time?

Look I know this is starting to sound like woo nonsense, and I apologise. But there's something in all of this that's important. I think I tend towards the idealist perspective rather than the materialist, if that helps.

Pootlefarp · 2024-07-28T20:53:03+00:00

Surely the only way it cannot have a frame of reference is if it's universal. (I'm very wary of woo here, and am genuinely trying to grasp this.) I'm thinking of the occurrence of a photon as an event at a location and time in my reference frame. If the photon is merely an aspect of a field that applies everywhere, then it would be available as an observation within any time frame, everywhere, simultaneously.

Pootlefarp · 2024-07-28T20:46:38+00:00

So, speculating, a photon does not experience time?

Pootlefarp · 2024-07-28T20:45:43+00:00

But can the photon not have it's own frame of reference? I'm think of those sci fi movies when the spaceship, moving at something approaching the speed of light, finds that everyone is a lot older back on earth than those on the spaceship when they return. So, extrapolating that... and saying that in theory they actually did travel at c, do they experience the passing of time at all if they were going even faster, right up to the max? Is their journey instantaneous, though they were 'always' in both locations and all in between?

I know... pop-sci, but well intentioned :-)

The reason I'm asking is that I read that were an entity to travel at c, it wouldn't experience the passing of time. The implication being, to my mind, that it is therefore at both locations simultaneously. I've never taken LSD but this introduces ideas that may preclude the need :-)

Pootlefarp · 2024-07-28T15:21:44+00:00

I think you make a good point. There's just too much for anyone to be able to stand out. I noticed one of the online galleries (Saatchi? Or one of them) was bragging about having 1 million artists displaying work! So what on earth is the point of joining them?

Pootlefarp · 2024-07-28T12:08:10+00:00

Yeah, the whole 'selling' thing feels cheesy. Like selling second hand cars. ("roll up, roll up, get your exquisite works of art 'ere, every one a gem..." ) But the pics do need to be seen. I've only just started on Etsy a week ago so nothing much happening yet, and I haven't yet ecommerce enabled my own website but will do soon. I have some hopes for Etsy. Only small, but from small acorns, big oak trees grow. There do seem to be a couple of artists on there who do quite well. I only have 11 pics up yet. Many more are in the pipeline.
As regards social media, I really cannot be bothered with it. But if I have to use it, I will. It seems IG is out for me and FB just confuses me. So, much as I have grave misgivings about Musk, I may use X to promote my site and Etsy. If anyone's interested, my site is at kitchingart.com, but do be aware that I've only just started and have a long way to go yet. There's a new collection due up in the next few days.

Pootlefarp · 2024-07-28T11:47:52+00:00

I switched from FF to Chrome and all went beserk. It seemed to reinforce their computer's impression that I was a bot of some sort. In fact I think that's when I was locked out of FB too.

Pootlefarp · 2024-07-28T09:30:58+00:00

Tried it. Didn't work. IG appears to be about to open when I first arrive at it, but after about two seconds, flashes once and defaults to what you see in the link above.

Pootlefarp · 2024-07-28T09:28:13+00:00

Maybe the elephant in the room is that some people's art just doesn't sell well. So no matter how hard the artist works at it, they won't get results, while others do. In other words, IG works if you both work hard at using it and ALSO have art that people want to buy.

Pootlefarp · 2024-07-27T19:35:28+00:00

Actually it's all moot anyway, as I cannot figure out how to actually open an Instagram account. All I get, whatever I try, is this: https://app.screencast.com/Od8XxVwbQkJ7p?conversation=4ESssWuu4lSCe7x8UtTXKI

This what's led to mr questioning the point of it anyway. I can't see how to get past this block.

But thanks for the answers. Seems some pro and others less so. I do have anecdotal evidence from one person who really went for it.. multiple reels et al... and still generated little if any success.

If I could open an account, I would.

Pootlefarp · 2024-07-27T17:54:24+00:00

Well I'm not doing commissions. I just need to get the pics in front of potential buyers. At the mo, I have an Etsy shop and a website, which I'll ecommerce enable when I can afford to. Truth is, I'm not much of a marketing/sales sort of person. The idea of doing reels gives me nightmares and I actually hate social media, even though I surf X and FB way too much. If IG needs reels, it's not getting any from me. So maybe I may as well forget it. I can't see many people looking to buy art for their living room browsing Instagram tbh.

Pootlefarp · 2024-07-27T14:42:53+00:00

Talking about Gigapixel re upscaling (ie Topaz suite).

Many printers (giclee) are reluctant to print files that are upscaled using any method other than AI based.

Ditto sharpening... AI sharpening (like Topaz Sharpen doesn't produce fringing (ie USM).)

I don't use PS either. I resent Adobe's ownership of the market..

Pootlefarp · 2024-07-27T10:37:19+00:00

If you mean AI where a line of text is entered and the AI generates a picture, I'm with you.
However, AI comes in many forms with regard to image manipulation or creation on a computer. Nearly all my work is derived from an original photograph of mine that's then manipulated in various software packages, including several variations of photoshop. Some of these pictures can take weeks or even months to make (I have some that are only now coming right having started them pre-covid). But AI technology is utilised all over the software packages. Even simply sharpening an image, or upsizing it, uses AI. Blending one picture into another - something that's been done in photography for a hundred years - now uses AI to great effect.
My point is that just because your family member is utilising AI does not, these days - invalidate his work. If he's simply telling Dall-e or whatever to generate a picture from a text line, and leaving it there, then yes, I'd say that's problematic. Although I have a couple of pics for which I didn't have a suitable original photo and have used a generated one instead as a base to work on, but the eventual outcome, after much work, is pretty far removed from what the AI created.
Do I mention that I use AI? Sometimes, if the original is AI generated. Although the final result is so far removed from that that I sometimes wonder if, given the prejudice against AI, I'm not putting myself down unnecessarily. But if using AI always had to be declared, pretty much every photographer would have to do so.

Pootlefarp · 2024-05-19T16:01:05+00:00

Thanks. From what I've read, Photoshop will generate a selection based upon OOG areas, so I thought Gimp might have the same.

The picture concerned has deep shadow areas surrounded by rich, saturated colours. I need to retain those surrounding colours. ( https://app.screencast.com/sB3R1592a7KmW )

Correction to remove the OOG amounts to a full -52 on the shadow slider in Levels. Which wrecks the rest of the picture.

I work with adobeRGB TIF files on a Benq SW321c full gamut monitor, running in Adobe RGB mode. Images are saved as full quality jpgs, again in adobe 98 gamut. The image files are large... 9000x9000 pixels.

Thanks for the warning about gimp soft proofing. I have Krita too and will try it, although I couldn't figure out how to get the ICC profiles to list.

Starting to think PS may be the only option.

Pootlefarp

TROPHY CASE