how big should a pic or collage on a blog be? also wondering if different sizes are good for different things - like if bigger pics are good for bookmarkers and smaller pics might send more traffic to sponsors.
Re: how big should pics be on a blog?
I would say it would depend a lot on your writing space. The content area can vary according to your theme… though most two column themes allow for about a 500px width in that area… I like to keep a margin, so that would allow me about 480px to play with.
For collages, which I really should be using myself, I’d like a nice mix in it, of larger/medium/small to sort of make it fit the theme layout and not clash, plus to draw attention.
my 2 cents
Re: how big should pics be on a blog?
The best sales we get are from blogs in the 450-500 width range with about 10-15 pics in a collage. Three column blogs tend to sell the best.
Look at some of the bigger blogs. They make decent sales.
The BEST sellers are ones that really brand the site as well as the blog with unique text and graphics. I think that goes a long way.
Re: how big should pics be on a blog?
Can someone explain to me why narrow pictures sell better?
My first attempts at doing a porn blog were only moderately successful 'cause I made a lot of mistakes. I started by showing a bunch of large pics, no thumbnails, and then linking to the gallery page with a “view more pics from this scene” or “view promo videos from this scene”. I had no clue that that was a bad idea.
My blog width is about 645, so I shoot for pics that are 600 to 640, but sometimes go down to 500. I used to almost only show hardcore fucking pics, but now I show a broader diversity of pics - typically about 4 thumbnails and 3-4 thumbnails. I’ll also throw in a promo video or two if it’s available.
Sales have improved, but are you saying they’ll go up further if I narrow things even further and go from 640 to 500 and then do even more small pics?
Re: how big should pics be on a blog?
In blogging in general, there is the train of thought that a 3 column (2 column nav on right side) does the best. Now, that only really works if you get the hierachy of the blog right with the right elements (nav and sales) in the right place and give them room to standout a bit.
The best selling blogs seems to have a 450 width on the pics. 10+ images in a collage with many images not going from one end of the space to the other, but cut up. Almost none link to bigger pics or galleries, but to the tour.
This is a guess - Maybe it’s because they are showing smaller pics that surfers want to go see the bigger ones? Maybe surfers feel that the bigger pics (600 wide) are “sloppy”. Remember back in the day when some webmasters couldn’t grasp the concept of a thumbnail and would dump 10 full size pics on a page? That’s why I like to do collages that are a mix of vertical and horizontal with some cool graphics. It gives the whole blog a neat feel.
Also remember the fold of the page. Unless you have a real loyal readership, you don’t want text to cover the page. The opposite maybe true about images. You want the collage to go from top to bottom. I would say that the thinner the collage, the more likely you will get a click. If they are already big enough for the surfer, what advantage is he getting by clicking a 650 width pic? An 800 width pic?
This is a hard question to answer. But everyday I see sales made with blogs that are 450 pixels wide, some good sidebars, and a good collage of horizontal and vertical pics. Not really sure why they tend to do better than the other ones.
Re: how big should pics be on a blog?
Most blogs are narrow not wide. Are you basing your conclusions on volume of sales or conversion ratios? Do you see a difference in conversion ratios between different types of blogs?
According to Google Analytics, about 1/4th of the visitors click through to a sponsor. Then I average about 1:400 for sales - that’s for blog post stuff and sidebar text links combined. Some sites I’m averaging about 1:150 to 1:200. But I feel like a site is doing pretty well if it’s around 1:300ish or better. Without divulging specifics about your affiliates, do you think if I made changes I could do better? (You won’t have the click-thru rate though).
Earlier this year I did learn a valuable lesson and started linking to tours - that seemed to help. But I’m just wondering how I can do better…
Thanks.
Re: how big should pics be on a blog?
we have been told 400 to 450 pixels is the best for our RSS feeds…but of course if you are not worried about feeds and having your stuff show up on others websites, then make it as wide as your site will allow
Re: how big should pics be on a blog?
Actually, since I manage the hosted blogs and feeds for My Gay Cash, I am worried about that stuff - just not for rawtop and wilywilly…
On My Gay Cash we offer both narrow and wide feeds (wide example, narrow example). We start with the wide feed (since the hosted blogs are wide) and then we do a search and replace on the wide feed to come up with the narrow one. Some images don’t have to be replaced but the wide images and the videos are named in a particular way (e.g. *-w.jpg vs *-n.jpg) so we just do a search and replace that changes all the wide image URLs to narrow image URLs and voila, we have a narrow feed.
As someone who is a blogger and wants wide content I find it frustrating when the feeds are only geared for 400 pixel widths when I want 600-640 (500 minimum).
Re: how big should pics be on a blog?
[QUOTE=rawTOP;17739] Without divulging specifics about your affiliates, do you think if I made changes I could do better? (You won’t have the click-thru rate though).
[/QUOTE]
There is really only one way to find out. As a math major, I can’t really give you an answer as I just don’t have accurate data to give you.
In past, blogs that I have run with a collage like this -
http://www.teenhornyboys.com/
(InasaneSimone posted the blog in another thread) have done WAY better than when I post image after image that are 600 pixels wide.
Why is that? Who the heck knows! Maybe it’s because the collage generates interest by showing as many pics as a small space as possible? Maybe it tells a "story’ without giving away the ending? I am also a true believe that whitespace helps make a sale. You scroll down and you see a smaller image with a lot of whitespace. Like a thumbnail, it begs click me.
I would say that IF those types of collages do better, it’s for the following two reasons:
-
It’s giving a lot of content in a small space. Pretty interesting actually. I get a feel for what the scene is about without reading the text. But, the pics are small enough that I really want to see bigger. On my laptop, I can see the first five pics. Pretty captivating.
-
When you scroll down past the sidebar. The whitespace imho actually helps the collage. It begs - click me if you like the story I am telling.
Now, a collage can affect conversions. Just look at the collages on that page. They really do tell a story. A little kissing, one guys opens another guys pants, they suck, they fuck, then the guy shoots. Or does he? And how much does he shoot? Hmmm. I kinda want to know. The question is, can you tell the same story in that small of space with pics 600 pixels wide. Surfers will scroll a bit, but that story really packs some punch in a small space that is easy for surfers to see with little effort and not giving away too much with high res pics.
Re: how big should pics be on a blog?
lloyd, maybe it isn’t the narrowness - or wideness - that’s making the sames. maybe it’s the variety. a collage can show action and variety within the shoot. when i make a collage for bjorn, i try to include both closeups and medium shots as well as a variety of facial expressions and positions. i’ve seen bloggers do it differently, with all the pics similar in either position or degree of closeupness, but i have no stats to compare the effectiveness of various collages.
Re: how big should pics be on a blog?
This thread has really gotten me to think - in a good way…
I took a little time tonight and looked at the design of other porn blogs. I still hate narrow blogs personally so I just can’t see myself going less than say 500 pixels. I was looking at ones that ranked well for gay porn blog and gay demon came up and it’s at a width of 570 pixels. I liked that size a lot better than something that’s 400-450… Here were a couple of posts I liked in particular…
http://www.gaydemon.com/blogs/furry_ass.html
http://www.gaydemon.com/blogs/lithuanian_jock.html
But even those weren’t perfect, but I found inspiration in them nonetheless.
Then I thought about ROIDS AND RANTS which I watch on Google Reader. Very different model and poorly executed from a sales perspective. It’s just a single pic with a link in the sidebar. But it’s simple, clean and honest in it’s presentation. The idea of just slapping up a single picture that I find hot is appealing. But it’s not the overly processed selling machines we’re talking about.
And that’s what I keep coming back to - some of the ones that have been mentioned previously have no traffic, no ranking in Google. I want loyalty. I want new people to find it by organic search. That’s been my strength so far. I’ve watched some acquaintances built sites that have a lot of traffic, but I know they don’t sell as well as my site that has less traffic. I know what works for me and I don’t want to lose that - yet I feel like my site is so imperfect and needs a lot of work - I want to make it better…
But I’m starting to see width issue differently as well thanks to this thread… The more I think about it the less I like the idea of lots of big pics (especially the huge ones I used to have that were 645 wide and 967 tall - that’s pointless)… I still see myself having one or two fairly big ones per post - but a good collage seems important…
I think Patti is right - it’s about breaking things up and creating variety and interest… It’s not so much about width per se… I definitely want to go in that direction. I want to move in a more professional direction while still seeming honest and genuine - like it’s not just a big billboard.
The question is how do I automate this so the work in creating collages doesn’t become overwhelming… I already have and application in mind that I want to write… 
Re: how big should pics be on a blog?
i create my collages in photoshop - it doesn’t take that long, and no program can find the pic with the naughty sparkle in the model’s eye or the cock closeup with a single shiny drop of precum oozing out.
i was thinking of going 590 or 600 with my new blog, btw, which is why i started this thread - well, that and i was curious. i think i’m going to track the big pic blogs and the blogs with collages using smaller pics in 2 separate campaigns, so i may have some input on this in a month or two…
Re: how big should pics be on a blog?
When I write something to automate things it will still have a manual process for selecting collage pics. I just want a database of images (and videos), auto cataloging of images and videos (when I point it at a folder, gallery URL or RSS feed), and drag and drop templating… But you’re right - the pic selection process absolutely has to be manual…
In the meantime I’ll use photoshop…
Re: how big should pics be on a blog?
This is probably the biggest gay porn blog - (recently did a slight re-design and still kept the 450 width). Not sure if I know a gay porn blog bigger than Queerclick.
http://queerclick.com/
This one is pretty damn huge as well -
http://gaypornblog.com/
Another huge traffic blog
http://blog.waybig.com/
Concerning collages - I agree that a good collage can make the sale. I have tried collages that are upto 600 wide and those that are 450. I am sticking with 450 as they just make more sales for me. I can guess all day why, but at the end of the day it really doesn’t matter. What matters is $$$.