brandonhamilton Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 SUP everybody When I put up one of my photos for a critique request, I usually have these options under the photo: Delete Critique RequestMove Photo Edit Image Info Delete photo But on both of the photos I currently have out there for critique, only have this: Move Photo Edit Image Info Delete photo I want to remove the request because they are done, and I want critique on another photo of mine, but the "request critique" links are gone on all my photos. Normally I get this back when I remove a different image's request. Any ideas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 This option is no longer available. It was removed for two reasons: First, a number of people were repeatedly submitting and deleting Critique Requests in order to keep their request as "recent" and get more ratings. Second, non-subscribers were circumventing the limits for them on Critique Requests by deleting an old one and submitting a new one. For non-subscribers, the limits are a maximum of one per day and 4 per week. If you would like to submit another Critique Request, you need to wait until you get more quota, by waiting until tomorrow, or possibly a bit longer if you have already submitted 4 in the last seven days. Of course, the other option is to become a subscriber, costing $25 per year or $68 for three years. This lets you submit 4 Critique Requests per day or 60 (!) per week. You will also be supporting the site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brandonhamilton Posted March 24, 2004 Author Share Posted March 24, 2004 Its funny you mention "supporting" the website. I probably generate a few hunded page hits on this site every single day. If you multiply that my the thousands and thousands of daily visitors, you are sitting on a 7 figure/year website. No need to charge, just research selling advertising on the site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sallymckay-lepage Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Brandon, I for one would absolutely hate to see advertising on this site! Just the thought of it.........holy crap where's the Tylenol!! Sally Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gabriella_lucia Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 This is a great site and I can only speak for myself but $25.00 a year is a joke considering the knowledge I have gained and the gratification I get from this site. People should use good common sense, if you feel your getting alot from the site ,then contribute. Twenty five dollars from many contributers helps pay for the expensive equipment needed to keep a high traffic site running. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincetylor Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Brian, you should at least offer an option to give more than the fees listed. Say an extra donation of $25 $50 or $100. Usefilm did this, and I as well as many others gave more than what you are asking here. Just make it simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 <em>I for one would absolutely hate to see advertising on this site! </em> <p> Hmm. There is advertising on this website. It's on virtually every page. <p> If you haven't noticed it, that's not a particularly good sign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 Brandon, unless your photos are regularly among the Top Photos, they wouldn't be generating anywhere near enough advertising impressions to equal the support for the site of an annual subscription -- not by a couple of orders of magnitude. Your math is way off when you come up with "7 figure" revenue. We break into the low six figures. The site covers its expenses and in the last year or so has been able to pay me a salary that, according to my wife, is now only ridiculous rather than pathetic. If it weren't for the subscribers and Sandy's subscription drives, we wouldn't have enough money to buy new hardware. It is true that there is probably a floating group of twenty or thirty photographers in the Gallery who over the course of a few months in the limelight drive enough views and advertising revenue to equal a subscription. A high percentage of these people actually become subscribers, anyway. With everybody else -- well, we need for them to subscribe if they want to be able to continue enjoying the site, since their utilization of resources has to be paid for somehow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gabrielma Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 I think the approach on advertisements on this site is a good one. I always notice them, and they never get in the way of the navigation of this site. The ads not only respect the intelligence of the users, but are nicely meshed.<BR>I hope people are generally mispeaking when they say they don't notice it when they really mean they don't get their face slapped by it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brandonhamilton Posted March 26, 2004 Author Share Posted March 26, 2004 Well hey its just my opinion. Ads can be good or bad depending on how they are displayed on the website. This site is DESIGNED around clicking and clicking and clicking as much as you can. What is better then being able to click through hundreds of awesome photos by the best photographers on the globe all in once place! I would gladly live with the slight inconvenience of seeing some small/discrete ads in order to keep the site in full fling. My guess is that with the traffic this website gets, you could make more then you think you could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
absinthe Posted March 26, 2004 Share Posted March 26, 2004 they could make more if you coughed up 25 bucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coho Posted March 26, 2004 Share Posted March 26, 2004 Brandon, this site is like NPR.... You already have over the 100 photo limit for non members at 147 in your portfolio. Somehow you have squeeked by. Now is the time for your $25 or euros or bars of gold... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted March 27, 2004 Share Posted March 27, 2004 Brandon, there is already at least one and sometimes two ads on every page. The biggest source of ad revenue right now is Google and they pay us 40 cents per thousand impressions. We average a little over 600K impressions per day through Google. We get a bit more from clickthroughs to Adorama, Dealtime, B&H, Ritz, etc. We also get quite small amounts for graphical banners placed on the site by Tribal Fusion. I think you need to inform yourself better about the advertising market for all but the top twenty or so websites before you draw the conclusion that photo.net makes, or could make, enough revenue from advertising to be able to relieve heavy users of the site (such as someone with 100+ photos in the Gallery) of the duty to pay for their usage of the site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brandonhamilton Posted March 30, 2004 Author Share Posted March 30, 2004 You guys are crazy. I simply state my opinion, and try to make a small friendly suggestion as a way to make a few extra bucks, and I get attacked. And by the way, I only have 37 uploaded photos, not 147 like David Schoen pulled out of his rear, in some bizzare attempt to make me feel guilty. Oh I found it, perhaps he was reading this? "Forum Postings (147 total)" Please stop the petty flames. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now