The Topic:
Kami Leonard of Ziggle Scraps joins us and we are talking about the dos and don’ts of digital scrapbooking: social media, terms of use, crediting, and how it’s all changed over the years.
Joining the Discussion:
Kami Leonard of Ziggle Scraps
Peppermint Granberg
Katie Nelson
Steph
From the Mail:
- Supply tracker scripts
- All About Credits
- Google Drive Add-ons
- Surface Pro
Picks of the Week:
Kami: Bamboo Stylus Feel
Peppermint: New Google Drive Storage Prices
Katie: Google Takeout
Steph: DayOne with IFTTT
Sponsors:
For the best deal in digital scrapbooking, become a member at TheDailyDigi.com.
Steph… I’ll shoot you a quick video on the font thing next week.
For credit tracking, I use Anna Forrest’s script. She’s got two options for CS users…
PSCS3+:
PSCS4+ with the the add-on panel: Basically adds a menu with buttons that you can see through the right tool bars. It’s slick!
Then, for PSE:
Love these scripts!
I was browsing some shared notebooks on Springpad yesterday and ran across an article that talked about a site that gives 10TB of free storage. It’s a Chinese site (China’s largest ISP via a quick Google search) and there are a few hoops to jump through but I did manage to set up an account and it says I’m using 700k/10T. Obviously I wouldn’t put any confidential information in there, but I will definitely try it for a while with digi supplies!!! The link to the Springpad note is: http://sprng.me/j4aop in case anyone would like to check it out for themselves.
Hi Steph! Just wondering where you get your Harry Potter audiobooks from? I’ve looked around and they are expensive and couldn’t find them on iTunes.
Carla
http://mshop.pottermore.com is the only place to get them that I’m aware of. They are expensive but so worth it!!
Hi Carla, I checked out the audio disks from my local library. Free is perfect!
All Harry Potter digital content can be purchased through Pottermore. You can download in several different formats (there is a limit on the number of times you can download, so back up!).
But, you can also get the audio downloads through some libraries if yours offers ebooks or audio books online. And, like Sallie said, you can try the CDs too.
This is a really good site for freebies – http://qualitydigiscrapfreebies.blogspot.co.uk/ but mostly I stick to just looking through the blogs I subscribe to in Feedly and Facebook. Hugs Crystal xx
I like this site as well. I subscribe to the Facebook page for Quality DigiScrap freebies and I am impressed with the nice, curated list of freebies that they present.
Bad news, Katie! Facebook TOU do not permit users to have more than one Facebook personal account. Both accounts can be disabled by Facebook if they become aware that a user has more than one.
An easy way to display only what you want is to set up lists. I have a list for close friends and family and another for acquaintances. When I view my news feed, I select one of these list views, and I get no advertising from pages that I’ve “liked”. If I do want to see scrapbooking designers’ and stores that I’ve liked, there is a view at the bottom left menu called “Pages and Public Figures” under the Interests heading and “Pages feed” under the Pages heading . All of my “liked” designers show up in those feeds.
I wondered about that after we recorded. For me it isn’t a problem because I use my Scrapbook Lady page – but you are right about personal accounts. Thanks Heddy!
An easy way to track credits is with Anna Forrest’s credit tracker script. It adds a tiny file to the folder that a digi supply was opened from. The first time a product folder is used, the script prompts for details (product name and designer name, and URL is optional). After the first time, every item pulled from the folder will automatically be noted as coming from that particular product. When you’re done a page, just run a report to have the credits presented in a format ready to be inserted in a gallery. She has scripts for both Photoshop and Elements.
Oops! Just saw Wendy’s post above with links to Anna’s scripts!
Greetings y’all.
I still don’t get crediting designers despite your discussion. As you mentioned other activities don’t require it (the flour is Gold Medal, the chocolate chips are Nestle, the butter is Darigold, etc.). And I don’t really see why *I* have to do it. To prevent questions? Yeah, like someone is going to have a question about a layout I have posted, the story maybe but not which paper I used for the background. And even if someone does ask about a button or some-such, why is it my responsibility (not act of kindness, but responsibility) to tell them who designed it, what kit is was part of, and where they can find it? I can understand that designers and their staffs, have different priorities from mine — they are trying to sell that button image. I have posted in ProjectDigiFiles and I put the name of the kit in the description but that’s only because it’s easy and it’s part of the challenge. You are all in the biz so maybe that affects your view.
For Peppermint: How did Joyce get her start? The usual way. When a man and a woman (Dad & Mom) really love each other they get a stork who hides a baby (me) in a cabbage patch.
Ron and I listened to Harry Potter books on CD as we drove back and forth day after day, week after week, for Ron’s radiation treatments. It was really great for distracting us when we needed serious distraction. He’s fine by the way.
Love and kisses to you all!
Honestly, I’m with you, Melissa.
I get that it’s free advertising for designers. After all, I paid for the use of their product, yet they are getting free publicity. Personally, it’s typically only fonts that I ever ask someone about. I have buttons, and papers, and flowers. Maybe it’s because I started in paper, but I will look at a layout and then think “Oh, I have a paper that would work” or a button I can put there. I don’t need the exact one.
But! I paid to use your product. Yes, I apparently agreed when I purchased it that I would credit you, although if I didn’t request or find your TOU’s previously, then I didn’t know I agreed until after I found your product. Although, after reading some designers TOU’s I will not purchase from them. I’m sorry, but this is a hobby, and some TOU’s are so restrictive that it’s not worth my time.
It does stop my mom from sharing. Even using the free script is a lot to remember when you are first learning to digi scrap.
And it really bugs me overall that Digi is the only place you have to credit so strictly. I don’t hear every podcast I listen to saying “music brought to you by..” “Headphones are XXX, and the recorder was XXX”. Same with recipes. In fact, on Food Network they go out of their way to blur labels so you don’t know what brand it is. When I paper scrapped, I didn’t have to say what line the paper was, or what font, or the other elements. I don’t think that’s because of the store thing that Steph(?) brought up. I think it’s because it’s not required unless you are on a creative team, or blogging for publicity.
Plus, designers don’t have to credit their CU items, so it feels very double standard. After all, if I love that heart, maybe I want to know which CU store you bought it from so I can just buy my own, and not yours. Then I can recolor it red or blue or whatever.
Crediting is not really about the publicity (as much as we designers do appreciate that). It’s about attributing copyright to the artist. If something is not posted publicly, then it’s not needed. But when something is publicly posted by a particular person, on a blog or pinterest board for example, then it implies the item(s) was created by the poster, unless, of course, the items are credited to the actual creator.
Most designers who require crediting in their TOU don’t actually specify that you must credit the full kit and link back to the product. So, it may be enough to say, “Includes products by Designer ABC, XYZ Designs and BBB Scraps.” At least that shows that the products were created by someone else. As for CU, most CU doesn’t require credit be given. But, that’s not always true either. I’ve purchased kits that come with a text doc spelling out the designers that they have purchased from. My TOU from my kit designing days included a statement that the kit may have included commercial use resources from a list of designers. So, there are ways to still honor the copyright holder and have it not be a ton of work.
Sometimes, the reason you will see food labels blurred is because they DON’T have permission to be showing logos with copyrights on them. Music in podcasts *should* be commercial use with no credit required if it is not credited. And, music should not be used if it is not commercial use. There are plenty of people who violate those copyright rules as well. And, I actually have heard podcasts where the host credits the musician who supplied their music.
But getting past the legal and copyright issues, I find that it’s just helpful to people who are inspired by our layouts to share what we used. I know when I’m looking at layouts, I often want to know what designer created that, what kit it was, etc. I might discover a new designer or see a product I would like to have. It goes beyond promoting that designer or product, to helping each other discover or locate things that inspire us.
Wendy, you raise another good question/point for me.
CU items don’t have to be credited typically per TOU’s. However, that brings a gray area to me as a consumer. Was this created by XYZ Designs? Or did XYZ designs buy the license for a CU item from BBB Scraps? The majority of kits I have bought do not include a credit towards a CU creator (and yes, I actually open those extra files and look through them{smile}), but I know that some of those kits have CU items. Which brings back the idea of attributing copyright to the artist – is it the original artist? Or is it the new artist’s interpretation?
Another way I think about it is: CU items are expected to be changed before being sold (Or having the license to use given to a consumer). If I take a star, change the size, add a plastic style, and recolor it then when Sue Scrapper sees the star, and wants it, it won’t actually be part of the kit I credit, because of the changes. While the original outline/pattern belonged to the artist, the resulting product is not their creation anymore. Does that make sense?
For me, it comes back to I would prefer to see the same crediting rule applied across the board. After all, whether PU or CU both the designer or scrapper are purchasing a license to use, not actually purchasing the product.
Yes, the majority of CU designers require that their items be altered. Recoloring doesn’t count.
It really comes down to what the designer requires. Many CU designers just don’t require it. My guess is they feel that more designers will be willing to purchase if they don’t have to credit. As designers, we should be looking at CU items as tools in the creation of our own art, not so much as the art itself. Digital definitely gets tricky in that arena. I can understand your perspective, but I don’t *think* we’ll see that change in the near future anyway. Most CU designers are probably not going to require credit (and are probably charging a higher rate because of that), and most personal use designers will probably continue to require it when posting publicly. It will be interesting to see if anything changes from this conversation, though!
So, what have I learned here: (1) Designers don’t have to credit but scrappers do, because those that design for designers don’t think that designers will buy products if they have to credit. This is perhaps a consideration for me as a scrapper, too. Maybe I should read the TOU before I purchase anything to determine if I am required to credit. (2) Designers can view purchased items as tools to create art. Many scrappers undoubtedly view the kits they purchase the same way. (3) Apparently crediting is something that designers can buy their way out of. My, crediting must be terrible if people are routinely willing to pay higher prices to avoid it.
Oh, Joyce. How I love thee!
And agree with this
I’m kinda sweet on you, too, Courtney, but our love can never be — I’m getting married in less than a month. First marriage at 63 years old!
Congratulations Joyce!
Congratulations, Joyce — you rock!!
Designers could offer an additional “you don’t have to credit me” license, but I doubt many scrappers would pay for it. I can’t say this is a topic that I’ve heard much dissention over in my 7 years of designing. But if it’s an issue for anyone, definitely read the TOU before purchasing, and email designers with any specific questions. Most are more than happy to answer inquiries about their terms.
Excellent point Joyce. It does feel like a double standard when you put it that way.
I wonder how scrappers would feel about an additional $1 on the kit price so that we don’t need to ‘worry’ about crediting…
*** warning controversy ahead! ***
I do think that the whole crediting thing is a hangover from the days when people made everything from scratch and it was seen as claiming the designs were your own if you didn’t credit.
Creative teams need to credit as it promotes the designers.
SOME designers REQUIRE credits in the terms of use. For example some TOUs says we may: “Use our designs in layouts that are posted in online galleries and/or submitted to magazines. Please be sure to credit the individual designer with the element and/or kit name. If you would like to link to a website, please use the following link address…”
Some just say something vague like please credit in their TOU.
Honestly, I feel like this really stops people from sharing online, and the whole TOU thing wasn’t brought up in the episode. (Maybe a topic for a future episode?
Also, because I almost always credit, I never even checked the TOUs for a crediting requirement until now. I don’t always credit if I post stuff to my personal FB page unless it comes in with the metadata of the image. I don’t credit when I share on Instagram either. Am I now in breach of the TOU?
I’m not sure what exactly designers mean by an online galleries.
Having the credits there doesn’t mean people actually read them. I use a quick page, people still comment on my design etc, when I didn’t even design it.
This is a good point Melissa. Speaking for myself, my TOU was created before things like Facebook, Instagram and Pinterest were around and/or such a common part of on-line society. I agree trying to credit in those places can be difficult and kind of takes away some of the joy of sharing.
I will have to go look at my TOU again. Time to go through everything and update it, in light of the changes in our community and in social networking in general.
Thank you for mentioning that. I hadn’t even thought about that aspect of it.
Thanks Kami – I’m glad to hear it.
I’m sure many designers only look at their TOU once in a while and we become complacent/accustomed to their wording and don’t think about the ‘real world’ applications.
I know I’m not vigilant about reading the TOUs for each kit I download. BUT as a customer, I really need to be.
I often think I would @ the designers in Instagram, when I scrap with their products, but then I don’t know if that is annoying especially as many designers just have a personal feed on Instagram.
This is another good point. I think the main difference between crediting artwork and crediting things like ingredients in a recipe is that the artwork is copyright protected, so there’s always a question of ownership- particularly in digital art. The closest example right now might be if you were a photographer who typically posts your own photos but for some reason, is posting another photographer’s work. You would want to credit the other photographer because someone else might reasonably mistake it for your own work.
I think like Steph mentioned, the crediting goes back to days when most digital layouts were created with original designs and occasionally, a scrapper would use someone else’s designs and need to note that it wasn’t her original work. Just like the changes in social networking that make some of the crediting rules difficult to maintain, I think changes in our industry as a whole probably have negated the necessity to include credits with layouts.
As far as crediting in the paper industry, I think that kind of goes back to the copyright issue and whether someone would or could reasonably mistake it as your own art. In the paper industry, because you are working with tangible products, the person creating the layout usually isn’t the person who originally designed the products. I think it isn’t as much about crediting the designer as it is about letting other people know it’s not your own artwork if it’s a situation where it would be reasonable that they might think that.
But again, I think our industry has grown so much that the norm has changed and it is probably not necessary anymore.
My 2 cents, and they don’t necessarily reflect the opinions of The Daily Digi. And, I am not a lawyer.
I STILL think it’s important to credit any artwork that is not created by the poster. Just because there are new mediums does not mean that we just give up crediting the copyright holders.
If I create a page and do not credit the artwork to the copyright holder, I am claiming that work as my own. That goes beyond the requirements in the terms of use that usually say you must credit the designs when posting publicly, and gets into copyright violations. I would expect that if a layout was posted on Instagram, Pinterest, Facebook or ScrapStacks, that the credits would accompany it also. There are ways to include credits in most cases. And, like Melissa mentioned, if there isn’t, including it in the metadata of the image is a great way to include it. If you use something like Anna’s Credit Tracker, the info is automatically in the metadata as well.
If I make a paper layout from around my house, using scraps and ephemera or hand assembled flowers, then there is no need to credit. But if I’m posting online using graphics created by others, I still believe it’s important to attribute those designs to the copyright holder, in this case, the digital designer or paper company.
If you don’t post online or submit to magazines, then you don’t have to bother tracking supplies or crediting them. They are for your own use. But the minute you put something out there publicly, you should credit the original artist.
Even under fair use laws, it’s required that the work be credited back to the copyright holder. So, are most designers going to pick on every digi scrapper out there who isn’t crediting? Probably not. Does that mean that just because you’re not going to be held to the terms that you should just ignore the TOU? Probably not.
Kami,
This reply was not directed toward you. It was just a general reply to the topic, but I guessed I clicked the wrong reply button!
I credit for several reasons. The first is that my memory is terrible. I don’t want to have search for that button I really liked on that page and want to use it on this page. And when someone asks where I got something, I can answer the question (or they can see for themselves without having to ask). It’s a time saver in the grand scheme.
I also think crediting is an easy way to support the artists you love. Credits can translate into sales which translate into a designer’s staying power. I also credit a class, article or blog a page was made for the same reason. There aren’t many industries that are comprised of so many mom and pop (emphasis on mom) places like the digital community. I credit because I value the products, tools and educational services easily accessible to me. I don’t want that change.
I credit because it’s better safe than sorry. If I were to use a digital photo taken by someone else in any publication copyright law and the photographer’s specific license requires I credit them. If you open up a magazine, images not created in-house are credited. I think that legally, if you published something without credits- and by publish I mean share- in a public place, you could technically be in trouble if a designer wished to pursue legal action. Even when I made my in laws 100 layout book it included credits because I didn’t know how it might be shared. I don’t want to be the test case.
Lastly, for me, it’s do unto to others. If I created digital product I would like the citation. I have experience with other people taking credit for my work and getting it published. It sucks.
I don’t credit on personal facebook page, but I do make sure my pages that I pin or share in a public place like Pinterest link back to a credited image.
I’m going to add a random musing: Some image hosting/sharing sites state in their terms of use that if you post an image on their site, you are granting them license to use your image for their profit without credit or compensation to you. I’d like to think that things get hairy for companies and sites when they see what you’ve posted is comprised of images you don’t solely own. With credits, the site can see there’s a third party ownership involved and their use of your page would be too be much a liability to use.
Off topic…Have you ever studied the effect of color scheme on sales. There was an anecdotal study of a quilted jacket pattern. The photo showed autumn colors. The jacket pattern didn’t sell. The designer made another in varying shades of blue. The pattern flew off the shelves.
I notice that I’m attracted to certain color palettes, which designers often repeat. I have to stop myself from buying because I notice that it’s the exact same paper or the same color scheme in more than one kit. I seem to gravitate towards the color palette, not the flower, button, wordart etc. Am I the only one? Have designers noticed this?
The best “use” of this effect is when stores have multiple designers use the same color palette to create “coordinating” items. LOVE IT (when I love the colors that is…). It allows me to “match” without being “matchy matchy”.
– One thing I’ve noticed, now that I am a DigiFiles member, is that I am drawn to bright colors. If a kit doesn’t have color that jumps out at me, I’m not interested. I’m just not subtle in my color schemes (or much of anything else, LOL).
I just wanted to let share my reasons that I unapproved a couple of comments tonight. I am all for respectful discussing of thoughts and opinions. I have always enjoyed trying to get people to look at things in different ways, and I appreciate when others help me do the same. A lot of the points that have been brought up have been interesting and even valid. I would love to discuss them more.
However, I don’t agree with, and can’t support, public shaming; which was starting to happen here. The only way to truly bring about change, is to have respectful discussions, without shaming.
It all goes back to etiquette. Dictionary.com defines etiquette as:
conventional requirements as to social behavior; proprieties of conduct as established in any class or community or for any occasion.
As a community, I believe, we can respectfully come together to discuss these commonly accepted rules of conduct to make changes or keep them the same. The Digi Show has always been about challenging thinking and if it is time to challenge all of our thinking on crediting and Terms of Use, then let’s do it! With respect and without shame!
I don’t believe that anyone enforces crediting. I certainly don’t, though it’s been pointed out that it’s in my TOU (which, btw is the same TOU for the entire Sweet Shoppe store). If I find a layout in the gallery using my stuff with no credits, I will not be messaging that person in anger.
In the end, credits help people find product. Whether that’s “free advertising” for the designers or you heading off questions about the product used at the pass, that’s all it’s for!
I don’t believe any designer enforces crediting either, but galleries do. I have seen posts in forums asking why a layout was deleted and a response stating credits were missing. Most galleries state in their terms of use that credits must be included or the layout will be deleted. Now, I don’t think that the moderators go through every layout to check every staple, but it would be obvious if the layout had zero or minimal credits.
You (and Kami above) bring up a good point. If designers aren’t concerned about crediting, why is it still listed in TOU’s? It seems silly to enforce part of a TOU (not pirating: which I am wholeheartedly behind!!!!) but not enforce other parts.
In the digital area, you aren’t really purchasing the products in the same way you purchase tangible products like a box of flour or a jar of paint or a piece of scrapbook paper. In those cases, you are purchasing the physical product. In the digital industry, whether it’s digital music, digital books, digital movies or digital artwork, you are purchasing a license to use the products. I think that’s where some of the confusion might be coming in about the differences in crediting some things and not crediting other things. The files that are included in the product downloads are actually kind of provided for your convenience. In fact as we know, just having possession of the files doesn’t mean you have the license to use them. So what you’re really purchasing is a license from the designers to use the products. And this is getting in to the whole issue of piracy but that’s exactly why downloading something and using it is illegal- because you didn’t purchase a license to use it.
So for example, when I am going to purchase a font, after I find one I like, what I am actually looking at are the terms of the license for the font. Can I use it the way I want to be able to use it and what kind of license would I need to purchase? In that respect, I agree that digital terms of use probably should be more accessible before the purchase is made and something I will definitely be talking with the team about at Scrap Orchard. This is another great point.
But it really is up to every designer to define their own license terms regarding how their artwork can be used. There can be industry norms, but there really can’t be industry rules. Some designers will be ok with their artwork not being credited and some won’t and it probably will have a lot to do with other projects they have used the artwork for and other licensing opportunities they have for their artwork. Going in to a project, you might not know right away whether you are going to license it to someone else who might require a certain amount of exclusivity, so you may set up a blanket license that will protect your work the way it needs to be protected, if you want to be able to sell it commercially.
Generally speaking we can’t set up different license for each product, so there will be terms in our licences that may not apply to every product in every situation. It’s kind of up to the end user to make sure they are comfortable with the terms of the product they are purchasing and if not, to email the designer to ask whether a particular usage would be violating the terms (like posting on Facebook with no credit, etc.) or to find a similar product with terms that fit your needs better.
For me there are a lot of times where I find a font that I absolutely love but the terms are too confining or the price to get the license with the terms I need is out of my budget so I have to find a similar font that is in the range of what I want to pay and has the terms of use that I require.
Another layer that comes to mind is country of use. As has been proven time and again in the digital industry different countries have different copyright laws. Do designers/stores refuse to sell to the more liberal countries? Do designers/stores just hope for the best?
As an aside to this discussion, do you think Pixel Scrapper is changing the scene and this whole discussion?
Their terms of use state:
“Attribution is not required.” for both CU and PU.
I had a designer PM me and ask me to credit the template I used. It was a 2-pager, and I uploaded each page separately in the gallery, but I also included an image of the whole spread in the description of each side of the layout. I had, in fact, credited her template in the other upload, but she asked me to credit it in on the other side as well.
That is the only time I’ve had that happen, though. But it does show that sometimes designers do (rarely) police the credits.
I agree with the idea that the norms of scrapping today do not reflect the TOUs that were originally written several years ago. Another example, besides credits: I have seen TOUs that allow at most 2 copies of the files – your “main” copy of the files on your computer and one backup copy. But today we are often encouraged by our community to have several backups of our files. However, I see in the Sweet Shoppe TOU they have a more modern rule for backup copies. Maybe more designers and stores have done the same.
Kami, I am so excited for this weekend! My friend and I are were one of the first ones to sign up for the Digi Lounge. She is a beginner so I am every excited to get her started. SLC Scrapbook Expo, here we come!
Katie, a few years ago we were both at the Designer Digitals Crop in SLC. I was too timid to introduce myself to a STAR! haha
Awesome! We’re going to have so much fun! And we will have lots of time to help your friend get started digital scrapbooking!! I’ll see you in a few days!!
I agree with what Wendy said regarding why we credit digitally. When I paper-scrapped and now as a digi-scrapper and designer, crediting the product used makes sense to me, so people know what you used to create your page and can search for it. I used to subscribe to Creating Keepsakes and Scrapbooks, Etc. and they did seem to require credits for the layouts they published. At least they always listed them, sometimes down to the pen they wrote with.
I wonder if this kind of discussion is why a lot of scrappers don’t share online, or if they do, it won’t be in digiscrap galleries.
Will Jo Scrapper read the TOU?
Will she understand licensing?
Will she understand what is meant by crediting?
Will she want to be part of a community who expects so much of her in her leisure/hobby time?
Will she throw up her hands and say it’s all too much?
As a university lecturer I found that is was nigh on impossible to get some students to reference. And they were losing marks for it!
For me referencing was second nature, as is crediting. But it isn’t for everyone. Many will probably think (like they do with digital music), I paid for it, so I can do what I want with it.
How can we expect our hobby to grow if we are putting so many hurdles in the way of people who would share their pages?
Bingo Melissa! It is the exact reason why I don’t post in galleries! I don’t understand having to keep track of everything I use. I would think that it would be assumed that I did not create the actual products, just the layout itself. What if I just labeled it like that? “I did not create the actual products, just the layout itself”. I don’t mind listing a kit but to list every item… not interested.
Yes – I’d love to see layouts from more everyday scrappers (who aren’t just sharing because they are on creative teams. I would guess a lot more people would share if they could just do that disclaimer you suggested
Another thought (don’t worry, I don’t have many): How are you handling crediting in photobooks? Do you put the credits on each page? Do you put them in the back indexed with thumbnails or page numbers? I am quite sure my photobooks are viewed by many more individuals in more intense detail than any page I’ve put online (and before anyone looks and quotes some “hits” number for my pages, be aware that I am responsible for way over half of the hits myself). I remember that Katie (I think it was Katie at any rate) put the credits on the back of her personal pages, but what about photo books? And are y’all really putting the credits on the back of the 100-300 prints you order when Persnickity has a sale?
I haven’t seen a designer require crediting in print, unless it’s published in a magazine or other commercial project. I do know some scrapper (a very few) who add credits to printed layouts for their own reference.
I don’t put credits on the back of the page or in any physical location. I just list them when I post a layout online.
May it was in a mail piece you read — my memory is in your voice. Or maybe I’m dreaming about you waaaaay more than I should.
Pausing the show to jump on and share a quick (hopefully helpful) tip to avoid the difficulty of going back and weeding through posts on a certain Facebook page to find a coupon code, specific post, etc.
If I know I want to refer back to something, I “like” it. Then, when I want to refer back to it, I can click on the down arrow next to my notifications, then Activity Log. Your activity log shows what you’ve liked or commented on; therefore, you can scroll to that activity, and click on the word that links directly to what you’re looking for (ie: status, post, photo, link).
I do that too. Great advice!
Hey there! I just want to comment on how much I’m missing my Digi Show! I know you all are super busy ladies and I cannot even imagine doing all you do including recording several podcasts, designing awesome products, blogging and keeping up with The Daily Digi! Whew!!! That’s a lot and I didn’t even include taking care of families! I just want you all to know how much I’ve missed you guys! Thanks for all you do for the digi community!
Tina in Texas
I posted this on the “I’ve been wondering…” section too
All this talk about upgrading RAM got me excited about speeding up PSE. So I upgraded from 4gb to 16gb on my Windows-7, 64-bit PC, only to discover that PSE 11 is a 32-bit program and can only access 3.2gb of that memory. It appears that PSE 12 has the same problem. Am I missing something here?
Thanks!
Nope. You are not missing anything. The current rumors is that PSE13 will be 64 bit for Windows. (I’m not a Mac user, so don’t know that side).
However, the magic extractor tool will be lost (it’s gone from 12) because it’s a 32 bit thing, and they don’t/can’t/won’t update it.
I would think if you upgraded your RAM that you would notice a difference, even a small one. Wouldn’t PSE be able to utilize all 3.2 that it’s allowed, and you would still have RAM left over for other stuff to run? (Not sure how that works, and my computer geek is at school).
I feel like “interrupting cow” here since this is such a vibrant discussion, but wanted to come on and say that Facebook ads are not a scam. When used intentionally, they can do a lot to build your business. That said, Peppermint was partially right in saying that boosting a post is not what you want to do. It is more effective and economical to use Facebook’s Power Editor for ads.
Hey Jen! Thanks for sharing!! I decided not to go down that rabbit hole on the show, but I’ve had great success with both ads and promoted posts.
This is kind of a belated comment but I am so glad that the Rhonna Designs stuff worked for you Katie!
Steph- I don’t know if you noticed but I was mentioned on both the Digi Show and Capturing Magic in the same week and it was EPIC! I feel like a celebrity! I’ve already taken screen shots of both podcasts in my podcast app so I can include them in my Project Life album!
Joyce I am so excited for you
I love when you are a guest on the show
You really crack me up
Your so much fun and to the point
Congratulations and I wish you the best