Hello all,

I hope this is the right place to ask this question.
After a long time of 'no time to even open the application' I got started again. I noticed a thing which I don't like, but guess I am just doing it the wrong way, I hope you can steer me in the right direction, how to better do this.

Currently I have a folder on my hard-drive, say \2025 in which I place the photo's I'd like to place on my website. I use 'Organize' 'group by date' 'months' to get them sorted in sub-folders from the months these pictures have been taken.
One of the pictures ended up in October, but I would like to use it as the folder thumbnail. I copied it back to the folder \2025, set it to 'ignore' and then made it the folder thumbnail for the whole of 2025. For October I want to use another picture as a thumbnail.
When I create the website, all is as I want it to be.

Now after some time, I get additional pictures, which also belong to 2025. I place them in \2025 again and use the 'organize'-way, as written above. My thumbnail get 'moved' into October again. I have to copy it back etc etc, like written above. Is there a way how i can tell jAlbum like 'ignore it when creating the website AND egnore it while organizing the folder'?

I hope I explained my topic in an understandable fasion and any of you have some idea how to deal with it in a better / easier way.

Thanks for reading and for any reaction,

Ruud

I think you're doomed as long as you use the "Organize" functionality. There isn't any way to tell it to ignore some things - it's going to put them where they're supposed to be, based on the camera date. That image file contains information that places it in October, and by dog, that's where it's going to go! The function sees it currently sitting in 2025, and knows that's not right, so it "fixes" it.

Perhaps David can tweak the function so that it ignores excluded objects. I think that would be a reasonable thing to do.

Hello Jeff,

'Doomed' sound great, don't know why. It just seems a clear answer, albeit not being the one I'd like to hear.
So thanks for that clear statement, your understanding of the function is understood and what I expected.

I do not know if I am the only one / first one, who has this interest, but it would be strange for David to change the functionality, just because of one users need. Of course maybe nobody would bother if an ignored file would stay in the original folder, in such case it would be an easy solution.
Except from that, I just wrote in my Reply to Rob, that I have the hope for other possible solutions leading to 'my required' result.

best regards,
Ruud

This sounds very promising, thanks, I will try that asap and reply here again.

Yes, perhaps ignoring excluded objects in the organiser would be preferable, or an option.