millercia - 2:13 pm on Apr 23, 2013 (gmt 0)
My in-progress Virtuecart ecommerce site will have around 4K different images of about 1500 unique items to star with, with from one to eight "views" of each item. More ongoing. Thumbnails and medium versions of the images will all be resized in HTML from a large (775px X 1000px) JPEG. I have renamed all the files with keywords in hopes of getting a boost in Google Images.
The subject items were each created by (different) unique artists and images are now in about 275 folders, one for each artist. This how the current version of the site (works well) is organized. The programmer has proposed placing the main view (1) and secondary views (from 0 to 7 additional) for each item in a folder for each item, with a vague rationale that it will help with site searches. I can only imagine that the intention is to use the "physical" organization of the site (directory structure and filenames) in place of or to simplify URL rewrites. I have no problem with simplicity but I see 1500 plus folders as a red flag. From an organizational viewpoint this seems like increasing entropy, as the "artist" field is one of the few things otherwise similar items don't share. Without a native human-readable structure maintenance might also be a nightmare. I also wonder if 1500+ subdirectories might create unanticipated performance issues. I can see this approach working well on a site with far fewer items but I can't shake a feeling of dread, perhaps mistaken but based on experience in maintaining the old site.
Would appreciate opinions. Might the tail indeed be wagging the dog here, or am I seeing the red flag through fear-googles?