Thumbnails In Members Area Sets.. Your Opinions / Advice

[Lee]

Okay so im about to embark on redesigning all 28 of the Condom Cash paysite members areas over the next couple of weeks and im wondering what you folks thought about the thumbnail sizes being used for the image sets inside the sites.

Do you feel that larger thumbnails, for example, 150x200px in size will be better from a surfers perspective than thumbnails of a size around 100x150px?

My immediate thoughts are that it really isnt going to matter that much so long as the thumbs directly relate to the content being offered however, i was wondering if anyone had tried multiple thumbnail sizes and if so, did you notice one size worked better than another, or whether my hypothesis about them not mattering is correct?

In addition, have you found that taking a specific type of 'thumb' and displaying it for a complete set as worked better for you? For example, fully clothed as oppose to fully nude?

Any opinions or advice you folks have on this matter would be greatly appreciated

Regards,

Lee

[basschick]

larger thumbnails are better. smaller ones make it unclear what action is occuring in some of the pics. also it just looks better, and members' first impressions should be good.

[Xstr8guy]

Are you referring to a thumbnail that points to a particular gallery? Or a thumbnail that points to a specific picture?

For a thumb that points to an entire gallery, I use a larger thumb... over 200px high. And it is representative of what's in the gallery. If the model has a big cock, I try to display an image that features that. If it's softcore, the model may be partially clothed, etc.

For gallery thumbs (those linked directly to images) I tend to use quite small images especially if the gallery has many images which 90% of my galleries do. If I were making thumbs for a gallery with fewer images I would display fewer but larger thumbs per page.