severian said:I've been going through the APUG members gallery and it is huge. Save my poor hand from cramping up. Whose work do you recommend that I view? Who are the best (i know it's subjective and I will not define "best") photographers represented in this gallery?
Jack
Matthewt said:I would be so bold to say that I am the best.
jovo said:Yup....that's pretty bold all right! It might serve you well to wait until you garner that kind of accolade from someone other than yourself. Having looked at what's on your site, that someone will not be me.
I tried this and noted to my surprise that #1 on the charts is a picture with 5165 views, with several other having racked up numbers in the thousands as well. I must say, while these pictures are good, they do not strike me as being as superior to the other gallery pictures as these numbers might suggest.Davec101 said:A method you might start at is changing the way the APUG galleries display members, as this is quite a good indicator of finding popular/interesting images. Change the way its sorts from alphabetic to Views high to low. It cetainly works for me as my all time favourite galleries are at the top that being Thomassauerwein , Cheryl Jacobs, Sportera, Gandolfi.
David H. Bebbington said:I tried this and noted to my surprise that #1 on the charts is a picture with 5165 views, with several other having racked up numbers in the thousands as well. I must say, while these pictures are good, they do not strike me as being as superior to the other gallery pictures as these numbers might suggest.
jovo said:Without meaning to reflect in any way on the worthiness of people's work in the gallerys, keep in mind that the gallerys used to be structured differently than they are now. Earlier on, every time a comment was posted to a photograph, the 'graph moved back to the beginning of the gallery postings. Thus, for example, one of my images that received a LOT of comments kept being returned to the beginning of the list where it could, in effect, start all over again. When Sean changed the default way that images were displayed in the gallery, 'number of views' declined considerably because they'd get to the second or third page much faster where fewer people bother to look. Also...the number of subscribers posting images has vastly increased so that also propels them along more quickly as well. And folks who only post to their own gallery rather than the standard or critique gallerys 'disappear' even faster. Lastly, of course, the gallerys are now subscriber only, where once they were able to be viewed by anyone visiting this site.
Another thing to consider is that some people do not consider posting scans of their work to fairly represent it's considerably higher quality when seen 'in person', so many of those folks rely on print exchanges and such to have their work seen...not on views in the gallery.
Matthewt said:I have work in the gallery. I would be so bold to say that I am the best. I have sold work from the gallery as well. Not many sales, but a few. Thanks for looking.
What I did was go into the Standard Gallery and select "Sort By Views" and "Descending." I tried what you suggest, which worked and among other things revealed myself at #72!Davec101 said:Hi David
When I go into the 'All APUG Subscriber Galleries' and review results by 'Views high and low' it comes up with Thomassauerwein, whose 58 images have been viewed 23249 times. Likewise with Cheryl Jacobs, her 61 images have been viewed 21597 times. I think this is possibly a a good indicator of whose work one might want to look at first to get a general idea of the quality of work at APUG. David, you must being doing something different than me or maybe i am not explaining it properly.
David H. Bebbington said:I tried this and noted to my surprise that #1 on the charts is a picture with 5165 views, with several other having racked up numbers in the thousands as well. I must say, while these pictures are good, they do not strike me as being as superior to the other gallery pictures as these numbers might suggest.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?