Why no full size images - GoFuckYourself.com

William-Xfactor · 09-10-2004, 09:14 PM

Why do 95 percent "just a guess" of webmasters build their pay site tours with no full size photo samples?

Are you all cheap and worried about bandwidth or what?

They don't have to be nude photos so forget 2257 answers.

pornguy · 09-10-2004, 09:15 PM

I am guessing that by this question you are kind of new to this industry.

Theo · 09-10-2004, 09:20 PM

what pic dimensions you consider full size? Surfers are on various resolutions and very large sizes are annoying.

William-Xfactor · 09-10-2004, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by pornguy
I am guessing that by this question you are kind of new to this industry.

Congratulations
You successfully added another useless post to your post count

William-Xfactor · 09-10-2004, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Soul_Rebel
what pic dimensions you consider full size? Surfers are on various resolutions and very large sizes are annoying.

What ever but 768x 1024 for example.
I?m of a firm belief that surfers appreciate a taste of what they are going to see inside and to be honest it?s got me stuffed how any of these ordinary template tours get any sales at all.

brizzad · 09-10-2004, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by William-Xfactor
Why do 95 percent "just a guess" of webmasters build their pay site tours with no full size photo samples?

Are you all cheap and worried about bandwidth or what?

They don't have to be nude photos so forget 2257 answers.

because it looks bad to have a big ass image up there, surfers like to see clean images embedded into a nice design

William-Xfactor · 09-10-2004, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by brizzad
because it looks bad to have a big ass image up there, surfers like to see clean images embedded into a nice design

Yes it would but opening the samples in a new window I?m talking about.
So surfers can see the quality of your content ETC

brizzad · 09-10-2004, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by William-Xfactor
Yes it would but opening the samples in a new window I?m talking about.
So surfers can see the quality of your content ETC

a fuckload of surfers come from galleries where they already saw the full size content

oh well, it doesnt matter, there's plenty of paysites doing $millions a year without full size images like this

Paul Markham · 09-10-2004, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by William-Xfactor
Yes it would but opening the samples in a new window I?m talking about.
So surfers can see the quality of your content ETC

Good idea, thanks for the tip.

brizzad · 09-10-2004, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by charly
Good idea, thanks for the tip.

yeah i do agree, he did have a good idea there

Theo · 09-10-2004, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by William-Xfactor
What ever but 768x 1024 for example.
I?m of a firm belief that surfers appreciate a taste of what they are going to see inside and to be honest it?s got me stuffed how any of these ordinary template tours get any sales at all.

oh ok, I had something like 1600x1200 in mind. It's definetely a good idea and it's something I have suggested to several paysite owners through time when they requested my opinion, but I don't remember anyone adopted that. Alscan does that and I can tell you for sure it converts better than 99.99999999 of the paysites. The reason why they don't? It's simple. Adult webmasters take as granted that something that is repeated from others it's the best option. Very of them the track results, so what you see is just a matrix of borrowed stuff that rarely work well as one unit.

William-Xfactor · 09-10-2004, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by brizzad
a fuckload of surfers come from galleries where they already saw the full size content

oh well, it doesnt matter, there's plenty of paysites doing $millions a year without full size images like this

I see your point, however not everyone comes from galleries also a lot of galleries don?t reflect the true resolution and quality of the members area content.

William-Xfactor · 09-10-2004, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Soul_Rebel
oh ok, I had something like 1600x1200 in mind. It's definetely a good idea and it's something I have suggested to several paysite owners through time when they requested my opinion, but I don't remember anyone adopted that. Alscan does that and I can tell you for sure it converts better than 99.99999999 of the paysites. The reason why they don't? It's simple. Adult webmasters take as granted that something that is repeated from others it's the best option. Very of them the track results, so what you see is just a matrix of borrowed stuff that rarely work well as one unit.

It does convert that's why I just don?t get these lame ass template sites. They must rely on a huge amount of traffic to make a buck.

William-Xfactor · 09-10-2004, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by charly
Good idea, thanks for the tip.

It is something a lot of content providers do and it does make it a lot easy when I?m choosing content. You can never really tell what the full sized images are going to look like until you see one or two.

edit typo

TheMob · 09-10-2004, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Soul_Rebel
oh ok, I had something like 1600x1200 in mind. It's definetely a good idea and it's something I have suggested to several paysite owners through time when they requested my opinion, but I don't remember anyone adopted that. Alscan does that and I can tell you for sure it converts better than 99.99999999 of the paysites. The reason why they don't? It's simple. Adult webmasters take as granted that something that is repeated from others it's the best option. Very of them the track results, so what you see is just a matrix of borrowed stuff that rarely work well as one unit.

if there was a list of best things ever said on gfy, this would be tops.

Melvin the Dude · 09-10-2004, 10:27 PM

I was saying this same thing last week, about the Nikki Nevada site.

Galleries ? Every pic (gallery) that I've seen is fucking horrible. Like it's shot with a 2megapixel camera.

I go to the site, hoping to see at least ONE decent-sized sample image that reflects the quality of what's in the member's area.

Nothing on the tour convincing of a sale, at least not my sale.

the Shemp · 09-10-2004, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by William-Xfactor
Why do 95 percent "just a guess" of webmasters build their pay site tours with no full size photo samples?

Are you all cheap and worried about bandwidth or what?

They don't have to be nude photos so forget 2257 answers.

its pretty funny, the TGPs have better samples than the paysite tours..never could figure that out..

AaronM · 09-10-2004, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by William-Xfactor
Why do 95 percent "just a guess" of webmasters build their pay site tours with no full size photo samples?

Are you all cheap and worried about bandwidth or what?

They don't have to be nude photos so forget 2257 answers.

WTF does 2257 have to do with ANY of this? Why did you even mention that as a factor?

William-Xfactor · 09-10-2004, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AaronM
WTF does 2257 have to do with ANY of this? Why did you even mention that as a factor?

So this thread would be graced with the all mighty ones presence

Nothing I guess but I thought some people might be concerned about using nude samples for fear of the proposed 2257 regs.

But a more logical reason for not using nude is to tease the surfer and not give too much away.

Dpope · 09-11-2004, 06:30 AM

Bandwidth and load speed.

Same reason they reduce resolution (as opposed to picture size)

I don't mind paysites since I don't join... but I do mind not getting a decent sample from a content provider and being disappointed after the sale.

09-10-2004, 09:14 PM	#1
William-Xfactor Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Melbourne Posts: 299	Why no full size images Why do 95 percent "just a guess" of webmasters build their pay site tours with no full size photo samples? Are you all cheap and worried about bandwidth or what? They don't have to be nude photos so forget 2257 answers.

09-10-2004, 09:15 PM	#2
pornguy Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Homeless Posts: 62,911	I am guessing that by this question you are kind of new to this industry. __________________ PornGuy skype me pornguy_epic AmateurDough The Hottes Shemales online! TChicks.com \| Angeles Cid \| Mariana Cordoba \| MAILERS WELCOME!

09-10-2004, 09:20 PM	#3
Theo HAL 9000 Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 34,515	what pic dimensions you consider full size? Surfers are on various resolutions and very large sizes are annoying.

09-10-2004, 10:27 PM	#16
Melvin the Dude Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 844	I was saying this same thing last week, about the Nikki Nevada site. Galleries ? Every pic (gallery) that I've seen is fucking horrible. Like it's shot with a 2megapixel camera. I go to the site, hoping to see at least ONE decent-sized sample image that reflects the quality of what's in the member's area. Nothing on the tour convincing of a sale, at least not my sale.

09-11-2004, 06:30 AM	#20
Dpope Registered User Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 33	Bandwidth and load speed. Same reason they reduce resolution (as opposed to picture size) I don't mind paysites since I don't join... but I do mind not getting a decent sample from a content provider and being disappointed after the sale.