Quote:
|
Originally Posted by glowlite
I loved the taste of bologna until I had my first hamburger. I loved the taste of hamburger until I ate my first T-bone. I loved the taste of T-bone until I ate my first standing Rib. I loved the taste of standing Rib until I ate my first pussy.
ain't nuthun been right since ........!
|
Ewwwwwwwwww.... lol Larry, I have to wonder if you prefer your steaks well done or raw and bleeding....
As for the question. I try to cut down on image size and loading time, not out of cosideration for those on dial-up. I had the "pleasure" of going back to dial up for the weekend a few weeks ago, and I wouldn't surf ANY porn sites. Anything with more than a couple of pictures was a nightmare to load. Like you said, if someone is cheap enough to stick to that... I don't consider him a potential customers.
Still, trying to lower loading times is a good idea IMHO, both so your visitors get their content as fast as possible (increasing the chance for a sale) and also to conserve bandwidth. My sites are on dedicated btw, and I still try to monitor my bandwidth and keep it down. Why pay extra on bandwidth when I can just server them smaller files?
I sometimes actually mention this as a selling point too, saying something like "this sample gallery includes lower quality images - join the site to see the high quality large, hi-res images."