MetaData "as a vendor" vs "user data"

evilded777

Obviously I have missed somethings in the development of metadata.  Not even sure if I have this distinction correct; but i have seen admins commenting on metadata created or edited "as a vendor" seemingly contrasted with "user data" and I really don't understand the distinction.

Its been a while since I've seen any sort of guidelines for creation of homebrew metadata and I'm not sure if I have seen any official word on the proper way to alter meta data.

So... who's got the word? If I am mostly looking to just update old products so they work better in Smart Content, or add metadata to things that do not have it... what's the preferred methodolgy?

Leana

This is what I understood from all the discussions when 4.9 was released (I don't use smart content so I'm not an expert):

"vendor" metadata are the ones provided with the product, and when you use connect they will be updated if there's a new version on the site.

"user" metadata are your personnal custom metadata and are used instead of the vendor ones if they are there. If there's a new version of the vendor data your user data won't be affected.

Silver Dolphin

evilded777 said:

Obviously I have missed somethings in the development of metadata.  Not even sure if I have this distinction correct; but i have seen admins commenting on metadata created or edited "as a vendor" seemingly contrasted with "user data" and I really don't understand the distinction.

Its been a while since I've seen any sort of guidelines for creation of homebrew metadata and I'm not sure if I have seen any official word on the proper way to alter meta data.

So... who's got the word? If I am mostly looking to just update old products so they work better in Smart Content, or add metadata to things that do not have it... what's the preferred methodolgy?

Yeah, Daz need to build a seperate scheme for us moders who like to tinker. I like my custom meta data but daz with connect may change that. I could be wrong?

Hiro Protagonist

I think Leana is pretty much correct about the user date vs vendor data. This has come up in the notes and discussion on changes in the current beta thread. As I understand it, now when a user takes a vendor asset out of category (which is something I fairly often do as I'm frequently not happy with how some vendors are categorizing) it isn't actually removed from that vendor category. Instead it is hidden, assuming the user has the global (default) option to hide it checked (it's in Options).

I'm not sure, but I think the reason for this is to do with metadata updates on products, which, if the vender categorization were deleted, the update would result in it being reinstated, to the frustration of the user. Doing it this way may also be safer for database integrity (this is really just my guess).

However, I don't think there is actually any change in the methods users can use to edit or add metadata (although the tools seem to have been made easier to get to, as the actions are available in more places).

Someone mentioned this elswhere recently, but in regard to adding metadata to assets that have none, or have been assigned default categories such as unassigned and lost and found but don't have types assigned (i.e. they don't have an overlay on the icon, such as "Prop" or "Material(s)" then I think the best approach is to create a Product for them. A good example of this is a product you've bought from somewhere like Renderosity, or a freebie. I make all of these into Products before Studio has a chance to find them and put them in Local User, unassigned, lost and found, etc. I've done this with umpteen products recently, both new and old, and it's made these assets so much easier to find and to use.

I'm attaching a couple of screen shots showing Products I've created and a look inside one of them.

(Note there's a bit of an issue with user-created Product images not fitting in the icon—you can see grey gaps at top and bottom—but I've now got round that by making the image 220 x 300, slightly taller than it should be.)

evilded777

I can't find the original post where Rob used the phrase "as a vendor".

It implied there were different ways of doing things, both of which were accessible to the end user.

I am trying to understand what he meant. Does anyone else recall him saying this?

evilded777

Found it, sort of,

"In 4.9.1 the "Lost and Found" category, and any sub-category that got installed or imported, was vendor-owned... as was the link between the asset and the category; a user did not own either record, so a user (that was not acting like a vendor) could not modify it."

 

For gosh sakes. I work with databases; I adore databases; I build databases for fun and some of this is making my head spin.

Richard Haseltine

There's a discussion of User Data/Vendor Data here http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/comment/1000831/#Comment_1000831

evilded777

Thanks, Richard.