Web Photo Gallery

[Oscar]

Should the coaster / theme park picture gallery we plan to open in a few days be limited to only member access or should it open for all, please vote, it is important to get your input.

imo it should only be for members. why? - well b/c if someone on another sites sees a kick ass photo, and cant get to the full version of it, that will be some incentive imo for them to join the site. i wouldnt want this place to be like pointpixel where they have all of these hits for their pics of maverick with no one helping out the site.

i must say members only. for the same reason above.

So what if they join? There not going to be helping the community in any way, other than putting the member count up. Plus it'll take more bandwidth to register etc, when they could of viewed the file instantly with no fuss. People like instant in modern day.

Spoken like a Gold Pass member. Wait a second, did I say that out loud?
(Easy Matt, you know I am just needling you.)

Anyway, does it really matter? Since membership takes about 10 seconds to accomplish, I would say make them available to members only. Perhaps by having folks join they may be able to see a few new things as well here that are not available elsewhere. However, since you do not need to be a member to read threads (which I think is another mistake), it ought to be something that only members enjoy. Kind of like why VIPs get a little extra here - it is a benefit of being a member.

Hmmm, the point is. People don't want to register to view a photo or two. Maybe if there is a whole collection there interested in yeah. But for people looking for a few. They wont register.

I say, a bandwith regulation for the guests. Around 20 - 30 photos every week.

>> Anyway, does it really matter?

Ofcourse, Weeweeslap isn't making random threads for of it. Or maybe he is [:)]

^good idea

I say members...I know I am a noob and relatively new to this site, but I say members. I became a member to this site because its a great site to discuss my interests: roller coasters...and pretty much anything else in the off-topic section. I like the fact that there aren't craploads of members (less spammers and hackers and morons and drunks and such) and I also like the fact that the off-topic section exists (there are honestly very few US sites that have something like it).

Another thing is...if the pictures are open to non-members, then there will be people who will steal the pictures and claim that they are their own, put them on their site, and plagerize (i know i spelt it wrong).


EDIT: actually Matt, thats a pretty good idea once i think about it, but it should be like 20 TOTAL, not a week. 20 TOTAL, then they have to become a member for more.

Originally posted by Matt

So what if they join? There not going to be helping the community in any way, other than putting the member count up.

Bingo. People who only want to see pictures will do just that. Its pointless to add someone else to the database (taking up space - however small that is) just so they can look at pictures.


What I believe is a better solution is to offer basic sized ones to the public for free (around 800x600) then offer anything higher to Members. That way they can still view the photos, but, if they wish to get backgrounds or anything of ultra high quality, they need to register. Lots of websites do this. TPR does this with videos. Lots of basic videos go out to the public but if you want the good stuff you gotta register.


Seperating the HQ stuff from the normal stuff will seperate the person whos just browsing from the person who is really into it. Someone whos into it will want the pictures and will most likly want to be in the community. Someone whos just browsing and doesnt care to get the high quality pictures will be content with not registering and will in turn be better off not using up member space and just viewing outsider stuff.


I believe another great way to effectivly seperate those two types is to offer brand new galleries and additions to members only for a week or 2. Then, throwing it out to the public. Again, it adds demand for a product and if they want it THAT badly, they will then register.



I think its all about who you want registering. My ideal version is close to what TPR does.

Old content - Free to look at
New content - Members only for a week or two
Special content - Members only


EDIT 1
^Eyekanfly - thats why you watermark your pictures. Then they cant plagerize. Plus, nothings stopping them from doing that if they register. People do it with coasters, itll happen with pictures. Thats why you always watermark in a hard to fix area that way its easily detectable.

EDIT 2
Another reason to use the idea about new and old content is you can accurately track whos joining your site and why. If you release a new gallery and its members only and lots of people join, you know why they came. It may be somewhat useless but it helps a webmaster to see what works and what doesnt.

well said real...forgot about watermark (actually i just didnt know what it was called)

Originally posted by mousie.154

And besides, whats the point of being a member if there's no "good" things to do.

Bingo. There is a reason why the phrase "membership has its benefits" is used. Thus, become a member or do without, period. I cannot remember being able to read threads and download things at other sites without being a member, eh?

I say members only, and I would like a watermark with the members name and the site. Especially the more professional pics, like Reals or my EE pics I sent to WWS. Also I have seen disney sites where you can see the pics but they are small (300x300?) and to see the larger versions you must be a member.

I would also have to say member, but have them participate on the site to earn more access to pictures, as well as other things (the points store for example, but with photos).

Another idea would be to have photo contests that are enterable (if that's a word) and viewable only by members.

But back on topic---members only.

I agree with Matt, there should be a limit.

I voted for members only. But what if you mixed it. I have been on sites where you can view the thumbnails... but only have access to some of them if you don't have a membership.

[GRIM.657]

Originally posted by Matt

So what if they join? There not going to be helping the community in any way, other than putting the member count up. Plus it'll take more bandwidth to register etc

my thoughts exactly

I think it should be for all!

[Oscar]

more people voted for member only, hmm a couple more days till I finalize my decision, let's see what rounds up.

i say members only because it's a free website, a gallery might attract new members.

[Oscar]

the thing got wiped on the HD crash, might rebuild it soon, all photos that were there are lost

Originally posted by coaster992001

i say members only because it's a free website, a gallery might attract new members.

Yea but they will only register to see the gallery, which in return, does nothing for the site.

I really like sites that let you view a gallery without registering.