Pictures and paid membership

Post #1 PrincedaleTextileLiving free with acceptance.

by Princedale Textile

Just looking for opinions WRT to the option to pay or not.
I understand that the concept was to help pay for bandwidth, and chat, so unpaid members are restricted to seeing five Pics I think.
I guess I am curious why limit viewing for bandwidth, but allow non paid members to upload 5000 pictures.

Of the top five profiles, four are free members, and one is paid, pictures totalling 13284 uploads.
Your thoughts?
Cheers

This topic was edited

Post #2 nudguyButt NakedNudguy

RE: Pictures and paid membership

by nudguyTextile

I think it's fair to say that there's not much 'benefit' to being a paid member; other than, of course, knowing that you are helping to ensure the continuance of the site. I therefore do think that the number of pictures that free members are able to upload, should be looked at; with a view to reducing the number allowed. I also think that, in terms of how profiles are ranked on the site, free members should automatically be lower in the rankings.
What do other, paid, members think?

This post was edited

Post #3 renebbareSuper Nudist

RE: Pictures and paid membership

by renebbareTextile

We should pay for a nudist site not to see pictures.

This post was edited

Post #4 PhilfreeeukUltra NudistI Philfreeeeeee ..... Do you?

RE: Pictures and paid membership

by PhilfreeeukTextile

Just looking for opinions WRT to the option to pay or not. I understand that the concept was to help pay for bandwidth, and chat, so unpaid members are restricted to seeing five Pics I think. I guess I am curious why limit viewing for bandwidth, but allow non paid members to upload 5000 pictures. Of the top five profiles, four are free members, and one is paid, pictures totalling 13284 uploads. Your thoughts? Cheers

This thread should provide the answers that you are looking for.

https://www.truenudists.com/forum/viewthread.php?id=3747&post=21059

This post was edited

Post #5 curt44319Super NudistShips are safe in the harbor, but that's not why ships are built !

RE: Pictures and paid membership

by curt44319Textile

Just looking for opinions WRT to the option to pay or not. I understand that the concept was to help pay for bandwidth, and chat, so unpaid members are restricted to seeing five Pics I think.
That's my understanding, as was explained AFTER the change was sprung on us with no advance notice whatever. ( see TT1 blog )
I guess I am curious why limit viewing for bandwidth, but allow non paid members to upload 5000 pictures.
Well, *I* thought it was not a great idea at the time, but he didn't ask me.
I can see, if your motivation is to generate revenue, that lookie-loos would be inclined to pay for pics of nakey people far more than nudists would. So doing it the way it was done tends to generate revenue from other than the nudist community, since real nudists are generally not here to look at pictures.
"Using" the porn community to support a nudist site, yet maintaining "free" for the real nudists doesn't seem a real bad idea on the surface.
Those that sent money out of genuine concern for site costs would tend to be unaffected, except for those of us who considered it a slap in the face at the time. Probably a minority, and a minor irritation at best, since real nudists for the most part don't care about seeing pictures. It's a marketting decision, something my history proves that I am notoriously poor at.
Of the top five profiles, four are free members, and one is paid, pictures totalling 13284 uploads.Your thoughts?
If the motivation is to generate revenue from a peep show, then obtaining inventory at zero cost ( allowing exhibitionists to upload for free ) and selling that inventory ( "freemium" paid status ) for any revenue at all is a 100% markup. That's hard to beat !
At the time it was done, several ( perhaps many, perhaps a great many ) members almost immediately removed most of their photos from their profiles.
Gallery pics never could be removed by members, so those remain.

I am not TT1, and do not know him. I do not know his mind-set, as repeated emails go unanswered. I can only surmize based entirely on what I've seen for the time I've been here.
Even his latest posting, some six months ago, focuses on the 75 gigs of photos now on the site, further making me think I am probably correct.
Since you asked for thoughts, those are mine, which may be 100% wrong.

This post was edited

Post #6 DesertRatUltra Nudist

RE: Pictures and paid membership

by DesertRatTextile

I think it's fair to say that there's not much 'benefit' to being a paid member; other than, of course, knowing that you are helping to ensure the continuance of the site. I therefore do think that the number of pictures that free members are able to upload, should be looked at; with a view to reducing the number allowed. I also think that, in terms of how profiles are ranked on the site, free members should automatically be lower in the rankings. What do other, paid, members think?
Being a paid member I guess I can comment. I agree with what you say, in fact I have related to TT 1 & 2 that I feel photos should be limited to 100 Pics per member. I also agree with your statement on the rankings.

This post was edited

Post #7 PrincedaleUndies OnlyLiving free with acceptance.

RE: Pictures and paid membership

by PrincedaleTextile

I think it's fair to say that there's not much 'benefit' to being a paid member; other than, of course, knowing that you are helping to ensure the continuance of the site. I therefore do think that the number of pictures that free members are able to upload, should be looked at; with a view to reducing the number allowed. I also think that, in terms of how profiles are ranked on the site, free members should automatically be lower in the rankings. What do other, paid, members think?
Being a paid member I guess I can comment. I agree with what you say, in fact I have related to TT 1 & 2 that I feel photos should be limited to 100 Pics per member. I also agree with your statement on the rankings.
Personally, I say limit pics to 10. Easier on storage and bandwidth, Easier to police if necessary. If a person can't get an idea about a member in 10 pics, then it's just voyeurism.

I could not agree more, and it is simple to change out photos, to update your adventures or what ever you do.

This post was edited

Post #8 EvansBetterHalfUndies OnlyGet real and in the here and now, or the freak out of my face.

RE: Pictures and paid membership

by EvansBetterHalfTextile

I think it's fair to say that there's not much 'benefit' to being a paid member; other than, of course, knowing that you are helping to ensure the continuance of the site. I therefore do think that the number of pictures that free members are able to upload, should be looked at; with a view to reducing the number allowed. I also think that, in terms of how profiles are ranked on the site, free members should automatically be lower in the rankings. What do other, paid, members think?
Being a paid member I guess I can comment. I agree with what you say, in fact I have related to TT 1 & 2 that I feel photos should be limited to 100 Pics per member. I also agree with your statement on the rankings.
Personally, I say limit pics to 10. Easier on storage and bandwidth, Easier to police if necessary. If a person can't get an idea about a member in 10 pics, then it's just voyeurism.
I could not agree more, and it is simple to change out photos, to update your adventures or what ever you do.

Ditto & ditto!

This post was edited

Post #9 SteveinKonaSuper Nudist

RE: Pictures and paid membership

by SteveinKonaTextile

It does seem as if a higher standing in the rankings for paid members would be a good idea, and get away from essentially selling access to photos. The ordering strictly by number of photos is doubtless a main motive for the very large number of photos a few of the members have posted.

This post was edited

Show 1-8 of 8