Quote:
Originally Posted by inthecrack
This is probably the the most coherent presentation of your side of the argument so far. I have seen portions of our pictures at 200 pixel sizes that link to unaltered inthecrack content on a page which which in turn links to inthecrack. I'm cool with that.
To be clear? if we are only talking about thumbnails then this whole thread is a giant misunderstanding. We don't have readable watermarks on the thumbnails on our site either. However, if the thumbnail links to a full size image with the watermark removed then I have a bit of a problem with that. If I recall correctly the affiliate in question had resized the images to perhaps 75% of their original size and called them "giant thumbnails" so as to justify removing the watermark. Pardon the pun but that is a bit of a stretch. I don't think there was any unaltered content to be found in the links.
|
Blogs are a different animal than say a TGP gallery. "Small" thumbs for a TGP gallery is standard and there's multiple pics for the surfer to click on. Blogs have larger "thumbs" that are supposed to be about getting the surfer to drool over the pic and have them click through to the TGP/Video gallery if that's what it's linking to, or (preferable of course) to the site itself. Giving the niche, as far as I can tell anyway, having a large image of just the girls ass or pussy is what that sort of blog needs. Your FS images are nice and large so it makes it easy to do that and size it down to the space allocated on the blog. Funny really.. In the old days of doing galleries we'd crop the FS images down to do the same sort of thing in order to get the surfer to "stick" on the gallery. Now they're just blasted out automatically. In a way, blogs a throw back to the old way of dong things where you take the time to put together the best presentation you can.