Photo dimensions on free sites?

[marcjacob]

Ive noticed that on some TGP and Freesite submissions that I get, people have massive photos, like 1280px width. Do you think thats just a waste of bandwidth and giving the surfer way to much, or do you think there is a benefit to giving the surfer full sized samples?

[marcjacob]

I should say that I resize to 500 width. Maybe Id make more sales if I did higher?

[RottenRay]

...TGP and Freesite submissions that I get, people have massive photos, like 1280px width. Do you think thats just a waste...

-- and --


Maybe Id make more sales if I did higher?


Yes, I think it's a waste - we're not here to give folks collectible jerkoff material.

And no, I personally don't think simply using larger images will increase your close rate.

I have found that processing 2 to 5 images for HIGH quality - and "dumbing down" the rest - usually work better than spewing everything at a large and 'jerkable' quality.

If you're in the business of promoting sites, you don't want your surfers to "pre-dispense" because of a series of images they've saved or viewed at your expense (hosting, bandwidth, time) - you want them to be intrigued enough to join and get the full-sized pix, the video, yadda-yadda from the represented site.

[abostonboy]

Hmmm... I disagree. I strongly feel that the content on your freesite should match the quality on the inside. But then when I build freesites I am all about bookmarkers to my hubs. I am sure most surfers get off a few times before they join something. But that's my goal.

xyz.com = happy place for cock!

Think about the big picture. How does your 30-60 pics compare to a tube site? Give them a reason to love you. Brand yourself. Once they hit your hub where you filter traffic, does pic size really matter? I mean your goal is to steal the surfer from gaydemon to your hub. So compare your hub to gaydemon!

[abostonboy]

I should say that I resize to 500 width. Maybe Id make more sales if I did higher?

I will bet you that you would. If you don't I will pay your BW for a month. My pics are at a minimum 800 width. The only time I resize if they are a real crazy size.

[marcjacob]

Hmmm... I disagree. I strongly feel that the content on your freesite should match the quality on the inside. But then when I build freesites I am all about bookmarkers to my hubs. I am sure most surfers get off a few times before they join something. But that's my goal.

xyz.com = happy place for cock!

Think about the big picture. How does your 30-60 pics compare to a tube site? Give them a reason to love you. Brand yourself. Once they hit your hub where you filter traffic, does pic size really matter? I mean your goal is to steal the surfer from gaydemon to your hub. So compare your hub to gaydemon!

What if I had the first first 2 pictures of each gallery full sized and stated they are full sized samples and that the rest are resized? Or do you think thats still missing the point?

Think ill do some testing.

Bandwidth is not so much an issue for me, it used to be mbps that was the issue but since I upgraded to a modern server thats been a non issue too, to the point that I think the old server wasnt counting properly. So I can no experiment without spending more money on hosting :)

[abostonboy]

What if I had the first first 2 pictures of each gallery full sized and stated they are full sized samples and that the rest are resized? Or do you think thats still missing the point?

Think ill do some testing.

Bandwidth is not so much an issue for me, it used to be mbps that was the issue but since I upgraded to a modern server thats been a non issue too, to the point that I think the old server wasnt counting properly. So I can no experiment without spending more money on hosting :)

Then you are assuming that the surfers will actually look at the first two pics. Assume nothing in this business.