the rules for freesites at a lot of str8 link lists is 1200 pixels total when adding the small and large sides, so while a 500x700 pic would be big enough, a 400x700 pic would be too small. and a lot of tgps required pics that size years ago.
the weird part is that lately i’ve been seeing more sites with digital stills 600x450 or smaller in their member area. that i don’t get. if you’re going to have pics at all, it makes sense to me that they should be big enough not to leave empty space around them at 1024, so i prefer pics to be at least 600x800. in fact, from a personal viewpoint, i like 'em a little bigger.
what do you think? are there reasons for smaller paysite pics? to me, your site will always compare unfavorably to members if the pics are smaller than most free content sources.
Re: pics - how small is too small?
I wish sponsors would give to affiliates the same size pics as they have in their members area. I have always found that bigger pics sell better on free sites. Some sponsors give affiliates a smaller size.
Concerning smaller pics in members area: Most smaller “pics” are vidcaps. As a member that doesn’t bother me at all. In fact, I actually appreciate it. I don’t think surfers use the vidcaps to “get off”, but more as a guide to see if they actually want to spend the time to download or watch the video. I will cruise the vidcaps real quick to see if it actually has the type of action I like (good oral and some hand job action) and then decide to see if I want to watch the video or not.
Lots of members at BlakeMason will jump in the forum and say they looked at the vidcaps and can’t wait to watch film XYZ tonight. Others will say something like the guys are cute, but they are not going to watch the video because they didn’t do it doggy style. So, I believe that if a site uses vidcaps as a “guide” to help members decide if they want to watch a video then it’s a good thing.
One of the most frustrating things imho is downloading three videos to watch and not finding any of the action in them that turns you on.
My 2c
Re: pics - how small is too small?
[QUOTE=basschick;23150]
the weird part is that lately i’ve been seeing more sites with digital stills 600x450 or smaller in their member area. that i don’t get. [/QUOTE]
I wish all sites would have a series of small digital stills that I could quickly cruise through to see if I even want to download the video.
Re: pics - how small is too small?
actually, lloyd, i realize that vidcaps are usually standard res or smaller. all of the pics i’m talking about are small digital stills, and i’m seeing more of them lately at well under 800x600.