posted on September 10, 2001 12:39:20 AM new
I'm going to be listing some items in the next week or so, and will be using reserves on some of them. On one of the items I will be posting 7 pictures. I will use AW, and the pictures will load quickly.
Is that many pic too many for anyone to look at? Or is the more the better? Thanks!
posted on September 10, 2001 12:44:25 AM new
Totally depends on the item. I use enough pictures to COMPLETELY describe what I'm selling and show ANY flaws.
Most of the time that is ONE, but sometimes it's much more than that. I listed some old cars back on FLD and put 3 pics in the listing and linked to a page on my website that showed 15 or more....
posted on September 10, 2001 02:22:33 AM newI will use AW, and the pictures will load quickly.
Load quickly for whom? Take pity on those with older/slower computers. Seven pictures is a lot unless they are very small. If you want to include that many, I would suggest putting the two or three most representative in the auction and make the rest of them clickable links. That way, those who want to see them can, and you really don't risk slowing down the loading time.
Edited to add: Oops, its been awhile since I've done this. Can you still do this now with the link restrictions?
[ edited by BlondeSense on Sep 10, 2001 02:41 AM ]
posted on September 10, 2001 03:26:55 AM new
Why not combine them into 3-4 instead? If I have more than one picture for an item, I almost always put them together into one picture. It's easier to keep track of less per auction, and neater too.
posted on September 10, 2001 04:05:59 AM new
I sell mostly knitting and crochet books, and I put up to 9 pictures for each auction. I have MANY people tell me that it is my pictures that sell my books. In my product, people are not going to buy if they can't see what is inside. I have seen many times when someone else lists the same book with only the cover pictured, and my book sells for much more.
posted on September 10, 2001 05:46:02 AM new
Hi, I believe we should have as many images as necessary to show the item in the same way the customer would look at it in the store. You don't leave a piece of jewelry or antique small in the case to view it; you take it out, turn it over, open it up and peek inside!
When buying a paper item, you pick it up and check out the bottom as well as the top!
When buying a used book you check out the cover, boards, table of contents, page condition & pictures. Sometimes the signature or copyright if important to you.
Glasswear you check out the bottom & backstamp, handles, inside, back, front and any flaws or chips that can be seen.
Clothing: You check the stitching, button holes, fabric weave, whether plaids or stripes match at the seams, pockets and collar.
Antique furniture: The width of the boards are checked, the hardware, drawer construction, inside & bottom. The width and depth of the item, as well as the height.
Cars: The inside, trunk, motor, tires, underside.
Why shouldn't a seller's images be the eyes for the customer and show eveything they would see in real life shopping!
Last night I viewed an auction for a piece of antique furniture. It had one picture showing the item. I believe it was the same one that said it had wide boards. My wide boards might not be the same as your idea of wide boards! I have primitives with boards measuring 15 inches across. A photo of the back would have given some idea of width, at the very least using a tape measure would probably add many dollars to the auction!
JMHO LabRat4
Edited because its early and antique is spelled with a q, not g.
[ edited by labrat4gmos on Sep 10, 2001 05:49 AM ]
posted on September 10, 2001 11:13:49 AM new
I agree with amber and labrat to a certain extent. One of my interests is old oil lamps. If I see a victorian hanging lamp with a price of $500.00+, I expect to see extensive pictures of detail from every angle.
OTOH, there are times when I'm just browsing the low $$ lamps, and if I see that an auction is going to take a long time to load, I'll just hit the "back" button. There are just way too many of 'em.
[ edited by BlondeSense on Sep 10, 2001 11:17 AM ]
