I have been browsing through various categories and agree that page after page of the same image is a total turnoff. I wonder if there is a way that GCU can set it up so that only one of the images of the cards is displayed,and the customer can specify the age, or whatever. Then GCU would pull that particular image out of a hidden "library" of images.

It seems to be a pardox that having too many choices would be a problem ....
 
However, having waded through some catagories where this is the case, I can see how it would definitely be a turn-off to customers.  Personally, I like the option of being able to use the same image with a different message ... in different catagories ... but all within reason.  I've certainly seen the same image or artwork used on different cards in brick and mortar card stores ... but never in more than two or three different categories.
 
I think the rule of 3 variations on an image sounds sensible for general catagories.  But it certainly should be waived for specialized catagories lige age and name specific, or the new Zodiac catagory .... which btw, I love!!!
 
All of the suggestions and concerns expressed in this thread have merit, but I particularly like the one from Gail about displaying one variation of a card, but with an option to see other choices of a card that catches your eye.  I know the idea of a "hidden" library might be a technical nightmare for GCU web wizards, but if it's realistically feasible ... it would make sense on a lot of levels.  That's jus my 2 cents, for what it's worth ... but I trust the amazing team at GCU will come up with a reasonable policy that works for both the customers and the contributors.
 
Teri
http://www.greetingcarduniverse.com/squirrelhugger

We've made an important first step in better displaying cards for shoppers thanks to a new "Most Popular" formula    
 
The formula considers many factors like: rating, comments, sales, clicks, favorited, and more.
 
This new sort is being used on all card pages across all of our BigDates' sites.  Card pages produced by search words work a little differently, a combo of search word ranking and most popular sorting.
 
This begins to help with identical image issues.  We will continue to tweak and improve it.  This does not effect your storefront gallery display as that's a separate effort.  
 
You will see many changes along these lines over the next few weeks in an effort to improve the shopper experience.  For example, shopper subsorts like latest, verse/no verse, funny, serious, etc.
 
Let us know what you think!
Mindy

Just wondering if it has been decided not to limit the reuse of designs for cards?

IMHO, limitations are not good.  GCU has an entirely different business model than Hallmark as previously pointed out.  To even think about limits is to deny the advantage in business models that GCU has over Hallmark.  The key to the "issue" is in better organization and search capabilities.  Not in placing arbitrary limits.
 
A customer will buy a card at GCU for (a) its convenience or (b) its uniqueness.  The POD model lends itself tremendously to "mass customization."  As the "mass production" led the previous industrial revolution, "mass customization" is the driving force behind this new distribution revolution.  The buying experience must be convenient (and the "clutter" of multiple cards with the same image is infringing on this), but they must too be able to find that ONE card that makes them think "WOW! Only on the internet can I find this unique, absolutely perfect greeting card."  Limitations on the number of cards, or the number of times a card artist can use an image would only lead to neutering one of the two primary advantages that GCU has over Hallmark.
 
Also, we need to be able to appeal to the "impulse buying" aspect of this business model.  Sure, a few people might contact the card artist or GCU to see if they could get a certain image tweaked for them.  But the VAST majority of people will NOT.  They'll just move on.  The perfect card must already be created for them, with only a few clicks standing between them and the purchase, for this business model to be truly effective. This means that arbitrary limitations on the number of cards provided by an artist and also the number of times a specific image can be used is contrary to this key aspect of buyer behavior.
 
Hopefully I've been able to state my case about why limitations are a horrible idea.  I still need to address the issue of clutter, however.  This should be accomplished through better organization.  End of story.  If some of the categories are getting cluttered up by vast amounts of extremely similar designs, they need to be groups and pushed down into a sub-category.  This needs major improvements here at GCU, IMHO.  The sub-category options and organizational tools at GCU are extremely week.  This, I truly believe, is the root cause of the clutter issue.
 
GCU Marketplace Organization - If clutter becomes an issue within any category, GCU staff could round up the clutter and move it into a subcategory.  This will make the browsing navigation easier for the customer.
 
Store Organization - We really do need to be able to organize our shop by category or section.  I have a few very distinct lines, if you will.  I should be able to group them together and organize the shop by sections.  This will make the shop browsing experience much easier for the customer.
 
And continued improvement on the keyword search capabilities.  If these organizational structure changes are made, the clutter issue could be addressed without hampering the most powerful driver for success with the POD business model.
 
Regarding "premium store fees" ... I would need to see dramatic improvements in how shops are organized and have available more robust shopkeeper tools before I would ever even consider this option.  GCU is too new to command a premium fee from shopkeepers yet.  I am seeing early success signs here at GCU, which is encouraging, but I've not had enough experience here to feel confident enough to help fund the efforts with new fees.

I really don't mind if there are multiple images AVAILABLE, its the look of one after the other that I am against. Store presentation should be our greatest priority.  
 
I also think we should avoid ending up with a site that looks like so many other cheesy free ecard sites.  

I agree that limiting images isn't good for the model I was going for here-very customized & specific cards.  Sooo...I did it elsewhere, and will add a few cards here and there here as I come up with ones that don't fit that model.  The POD business in general lends itself to really custom stuff (IE Happy 25th Birthday John with a fisihing boat).  Then, that same image for different ages and names.  (example of something I just completely made up).  If there was a better way to organize the "marketplace" as well as the shops was offered, the major drawback to shoppers would be able to be fixed-pages of the same image.  I am betting on this being a learning as they go experiance, as this is the only such site of this nature I am aware of.  Hopefully as the site expands things like this will be memories of the past!

In my opinion if you limit the number of cards allowed in a store you are actually limiting GCU earnings (not just the sellers earnings). Does the comapany not want to earn as much as it possibly can?  
 
If the number of cards being approved is an issue just make the guidelines stricter on what is and isn't approved... to weed out the "not so good" cards.  
 
Just my 2 cents