The photos, that is. As you might imagine, I've had interesting responses to the pictures I post on fufL. Aside from some of the umm.. obvious remarks, some have been about the size of the images.
One directory of blogs rejected us saying something along the lines of 'this is a photoblog - so why are the pictures too big?' Huh? You want tiny thumbnails you have to click on and wait for them to download?
I didn't think so..
Another directory said they made the site take too long to load, 'over 2.5 seconds for you home page. Sorry, this is unacceptable to us'. Well, geez, buddy, it's not my fault you're so cheap you run a directory but still use a dial-up..
Then, I had one complaint that 'you have to scroll down to see the entire picture- too much work'. A word of advice? If that's your problem with the site, scroll away; it may help you keep your other hand from getting over-developed while reading the posts..
Some have asked why when they click on a pic, it takes them to the hosting site log-in, but not to all my other pictures. Well, the point is to browse the blog, right? (One supposes if they read Playboy, it's just to look at the pictures!)
And anything there is already here.. or will be here, so, no reading ahead. Then again, some people must like to open their birthday presents a week early if they find them.
And, more importantly: It's is a photoblog, so why shouldn't the pictures be as large as they can? You can always copy and shrink them if you really wish, but I figure in an era when people are shelling out for not-just-big-but-huge-screen TVs and computer monitors, most people would go with the bigger-is-better idea.
And, in all seriousness, to the vast majority of you who've left comments (some private, others published): It's cool when you hear from another soul, male or female, with similar interests in lingerie and underwear. Thanks for reading, and I hope you continue to enjoy the posts - franku