atle.g

<p>Here's another good resource/forum:<br>

<a href="http://forum.timescapes.org/phpBB3/">http://forum.timescapes.org/phpBB3/</a></p>

<p>Would recommend <a href="http://www.photium.com">www.photium.com</a> that come with a integrated paypal solution at no extra cost.<br>

And the customer service is exellent.</p>

<p>I can recommend <a href="http://www.photium.com">www.photium.com</a> wich have paypal support,..and excellent level of service.<br />Regarding paypal....with so many users there are bound to be some that not are pleased.</p>

<p>Thank you Katherine! i will fetch your email. and get in touch with you.</p>

<p>Thank you Katherine!<br>

"I don't know how many average users actually adjust those things"<br>

Perhaps people buying the more expensive ones with adjustments like this, are more likely to read the manual and make adjustments. Thoose people might also be willing to pay more for photos perhaps?<br>

Have made up some photos and they looks good on the monitor, but are compressed quite much, perhaps to much. If you are interrested, i can send you a couple of files to examine. Photographers are more critical than average people in issues like this, so if the files looks technical good to you, then they will for shure be it for the average user.</p>

 

<p>Thanks Rainer!<br>

"cheaper frames aren't overly accurate in their color reproduction"<br>

Hopefully the photos will look better than the regular holiday snaps that i guess many frames are filled up with, making the buyers happy with what they look at.</p>

<p>Considering making a photo package for digital photoframes. Have made a few 800X600 photos, and wondering if that covers the lower resolutions as well (same ratio) or do i have to make different resolution versions? What about pricing? anyone into this?... I am thinking of putting together a package of 10 or 12 photos for sale through my website. <br>

I do not have a dig. photoframe, and not shure if there is too much compression. Anyone care to test. I will send photos to anyone with a dig. frame that is willing to provide feedback of the quality.<br>

Thanks!</p>

I checked your html code and found no describtion and keyword meta tags. They might be important, ispecially the description tag content. You can check your site on one of the many online "Meta Tag Analyzer" sites....like this one: http://www.seocentro.com/tools/search-engines/metatag-analyzer.html

www.photium.com is another one...wich i consider myself. Searched around and found that many are

happy with them. Seems like they are know for their fast and good support too.

http://www.photo.net/info/about-us

When using html tags..ispecially "br", longer comments is neater and

easier to read. However not all are familiar with it.<br><br> Would

it be a good idea to include some tag buttons, with the most common

ones, making it easier and faster?

It would cause a storm that would make the current complaints about the ratings look like a mild summer breeze :-)

excellent interface. I tried it myself.. and was sitting...and sitting... rating a huge number of photos. I do think if a number of regulars on the site... give their share of rates here..the mate rating effect could be reduced..at least to a certain degree.

Since the ratings are so tightly squeezed, perhaps dividing them into half numbers would be good...at least for the 5 and 6's

When being on the top rated photos pages, and from there want to

select the critique forum, i put the mouse pointer on the gallery.

But it dissapears behind the search box(es). Not a big deal but...if

its easy to fix...

I think good critiques should be encouraged. Perhaps by abiltiy to vote for helpful critiques, it might take away some of the attention of the rates wich many myself included dont feel its very fruitful as it now appears. Would guess that a "toplist" of critiquers would get attention that could encourage others to follow that path.

Bartek... havent followed that so closely... but i belive the reason to that, is that because of the new rate "recent sum"... and "recent average", the "rate average" photos didnt get the lower rates that caught up with them before, because the attention was spread between the 3.... and therefore the ratings is getting higher than ever before

take a look at this one http://www.photo.net/photo/3361869. a contribution to the inflation...

Yes...its inflation without any doubt. Have been around since early 2002 and in general i feel that the average (at least technical) standard have increased a bit... wich im shure has to do with the increasing number of dig cams and (easier) post processing. Regarding the highest rated photos...its about mate rating... give out high ones and get high in return.

you mentioned that you thought it deserved 4 for originality..then i cant see why ratings just one mark under should upset you this much. 2 raters gave it 6 that would "balance" the 4 3's. Regarding the photo itself.. It lacks light to stand out, comp is ok, not bad, not striking. Overall impact as i would judge it....average....And ratings are just numbers... helpful/honest comments are worth much more. And look at it from the bright side.... you have got a lot of attention.

Strange indeed. Checked the registration spechs on the domain.

The registrant are located in belgium<br><br>

Domain ID:D96743071-LROR<br>

Domain Name:WEBTRAVEL.ORG<br>

Created On:19-Apr-2003 12:03:30 UTC<br>

Last Updated On:01-Mar-2005 16:04:36 UTC<br>

Expiration Date:19-Apr-2006 12:03:30 UTC<br>

Sponsoring Registrar:Gandi SARL (R42-LROR)<br>

Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED<br>

Registrant ID:0-829759-GANDI<br>

Registrant Name:Han Welvaarts<br>

Registrant Organization:Domatica Bvba<br><br>

Could be a false name...or else he is stupid.

its steadily increasing, its not unusual to see all the comments on a photo only containing one language.. located on the higher TRP pages.. and with more longer comments than before.

"It's the one of the costs of posting your work for critique on photo.net"<br><br> Would rather say that it is one of the great <b>benefits</b> of the site.

Ooops, new try <a href= http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00B6pJ>here </a>

Baldur.., check this: <a http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00B6pJ>Thread</a> <br> It might be the reason.