posted on April 24, 2001 02:52:55 PM
I got the same email. I believe that existing members can get their first year for $9.95 if they submit their CC info / payment by a certain date (sometime in May, I think), but why would you when there are still so many free ones?
I pulled all my images and will place them on a new free site when I have time.
posted on April 24, 2001 02:54:00 PM
Not that I know of but, I found another site just like photopoint and they are free. I cant post it here because the AW police will delete it and probably want to spank me.
posted on April 24, 2001 03:31:46 PM
Actually, I'm staying with PhotoPoint and plan to sign up shortly. I think $9.95 per year is more than reasonable. Also, because they don't automatically delete your images, it makes my auction ads easier to compose in FrontPage by copying the picture directly in the ad itself and inserting a URL for some clip art in the URL box to prompt the pic icon.
For example, if I can't sell an item over the next couple of months and I don't want to list much over the slower summer months, then I can use my exact same ad with the picture already embedded (HTML already linked to PhotoPoint) when business picks up again in the fall and winter. With another site, even though they might be free, I'd have to keep reuploading my pics because they'd keep deleting them. I've even seen free sites that delete your images in as little as 2 weeks.
Besides, with Honesty, AW, and PhotoPoint all charging now within the last couple of months, how long will it be before the rest of the free sites start charging? http://bjgrolle.freehomepage.com
posted on April 24, 2001 03:44:05 PM
As a buyer I am glad Photopoint is going to start charging because I hate those click links on the auctions and maybe less people will use Photopoint. I usually click right off of an auction page if I see the Photopoint link unless it is something I really, really want to see.
The click links are bad enough, but if you do click on the link you get a pop up that covers the picture that you have to close to see it. As sellers you may think that Photopoint is a great deal because it is free. But does anyone who uses Photopoint think about the reason it is free? It is because bidders have to look at "commercials" to see your auctions. It probably costs Photopoint users bids too. There is too much stuff on eBay to be bothered with clicking links, looking at commericals, and closing pop ups to see an auction. It is a real toss up which is worse: The crummy compressed IPIX images, or the links and pop ups on Photopoint.
posted on April 24, 2001 03:57:18 PM
I've been using PhotoPoint since AW implemented their fees and I've never used the links. My pictures are right on the auction page. And I've seen many other auction pages that use PhotoPoint and the picture is right there also.
There's really no reason to use the link unless you need to link to a large group of photos.
So your generalization that bidders have to look at "commercials" to see your auctions. is incorrect. It probably costs Photopoint users bids too. It might if bidders don't want to click on a link, but if the picture is already there, well... http://bjgrolle.freehomepage.com
posted on April 24, 2001 05:03:42 PM
I've been using PhotoPoint practically since I started at eBay. We WebTV users have been somewhat limited in our choices for image hosting, and I was never able to make the other services I tried work well for me.
I agree with BJGrolle about the fee. I initially did consider leaving PhotoPoint, but after exploring the alternatives, including trying to throw together a quickie website, I decided to stay, at least for the time being. To be able to host a thousand images indefinitely for that price is really not too bad at all. Plenty of room for all kinds of pictures!
As for clicking on links to see PhotoPoint images, I don't know why that would be necessary. I've never used that technique in an auction listing--my pics are right there with the description text.
I do wish they'd fix the editing tools, though. They haven't worked properly, at least for WebTV users, since all the "improvements" took effect.
