Please don't flame me - the following is just MY opinion
 
I'm not sure that the most popular etc cards are hurting anyone's sales, I do think we have to reconsider the over use of the multi tasked image- ONE image for EVERY occassion
I know its an old chestnut, but its not a good look for GCU and it may be hurting contributors.
       It doesn't do anyone any good to sacrifice quality for quantity.
 
Also, according to my site meter I haven't got a single sale from the "popular" pages - would love to hear of other's experience.
 

Thanks for the "no flame" reply Roseanne. I *HAD* put on my asbestos undies just in case
 
Actually I don't mind a few "same image" ones  I have a few myself. But I do wonder when the same image is used from a 1 year old to 100 year old etc and then for every relative as well.
 
Anyway, don't take any notice of me,  I got an AWFUL lurgi from my DH and feeling miserable
 

Hi, Rosanne and Eugenia,  I'm afraid I am becoming a multiple offender since I have been reading how the search engines for google and yahoo work.  What sales I've had have come in on a very specific engine search. very few if any browsers are buying my cards, so I am changing my opinion from what it was when I first came to GCU.  It's the age old conflict-----Whats artistic-----and the market place!

Hi to all ...
 
First of all thanks to Denise, Rosanne, Mindy, Norval, Eguenia, Donna and everyone else participating in this thread.  I was glad to see this topic come up for discussion, but it seems to have split into two separate topics ... 1) fair chance at exposure for ALL artists, and 2) the overuse of multi-task images.  
 
On issue #1 ... I have to agree with Denise and Rosanne.  I would like to see "most popular" and "best sellers" given the axe.  I think when the keyword search improvement comes on-line, that would be a much better tool for displaying results that would be "most likely to be purchased" by a shopper looking for specific types of cards than the current system.  The reality, which I understand, is that most sites do offer a "best sellers" or "best of" feature for shoppers to browse, but they are usually balanced by a "newest" and "random" option as well.  And it may be something that shopper's expect to find.  So, in that regard, it may not be in the best interest of the artists to do away with it completely ... but, as Denise, Rosanne and Norval suggested, provide some randomized showcase that would help others get some exposure.  
 
Also, in agreement with Rosanne ... and this is not about my cards -- I'm speaking strictly as a SHOPPER in this paragraph ... I want to see some other folks who have fantastic cards get a bit of exposure.  We all agree about the incredible pool of talent here ... but I'm afraid we're going to lose many, if we haven't already, because their cards are don't get much exposure/sales.  Some of the real gems I've found, I would never have come across if I had been shopping the way the current system directs the path.  It's kind of become a routine for me now when I'm browsing to go to "most popular" view ... then go to "Last" and work my way forward ... I've found cards that absolutely delighted me and artists who I had never yet heard of that way.  
 
On issue #2 ... the multi-task image is another one that I think could be improved or managed with just a bit of common sense.  I think the over-categorization and "Happy 87th Birthday or Whatever to My 3rd Cousin-In-Law-Twice-Removed-on-My-Mother's-Side" has gone way overboard.  But, in fairness to GCU, I recognize how they are trying to fine-tune the shopping experience.  But again, as a shopper, I generally don't want, and don't BUY, cards that are that specific.  I look for cards "for Her" or "for Him" ... maybe immediate family (Mom, Dad, Brother, etc.), but most of the time I find exactly the card I'm looking for because A) I like the cover art, B) the inside message says what's in my heart, or C) there's something about the card that will have special significance and meaning to the recipient ... whether or not it is designed or intended for that relative.  Most of my traditional card purchases are more general in nature, but personalized by the thought and consideration I gave in choosing it for that specific person.  I don't know how other shopper's decide, but that's how I do it ... and based on 1 year of sales here at GCU, it seems to be reflected in my stats ... the more general a card is in a "specific category" it seems to sell better and get more exposure than the highly refined and oh-so specific cards.  That's what I've seen.
 
Now as an artist, I absolutely HATE milling my cards for multiple categories.  I would much rather create a card that's specific to what I have in mind and let it stand and sell or wither and die within it's own category.  Initially, I did only one series of age-specific category cards (21,25, 30-75).  The only reason I did them was because a friend wanted a 70th birthday card for a male and couldn't find a masculine one at the time.  I liked the design I came up with for her, and so did she, so I lightly did that series and that was all I intended to do in that regard.  Only recently have I started doing more of this -- not because I want to -- yes, it bores me to tears and takes much of the enjoyment out of the creation process for me ... the main and only reason I've started doing this is to protect my work.  As some of you may recall, I was a bit ticked-off when I found knock-offs of cards that I intened to be very specific to an age, a gender, and a unique inside message taken by another artist and liberally peppered throughout dozens of age and relationship categories.  Yes, old history, but one that I will not tolerate being repeated.  So, if this is what I have to do to prevent that from happening again, so be it.  I don't like it, and I particularly don't like the reasons for which I feel pressured to do so.  And I've spoken privately with other artists who feel much the same about creating a card they like for a specific reason or occasion and letting it stand, but who also feel their cards don't stand much of a chance of being seen unless they repeat it ad-nauseum throughout all the categories.  I admire and respect those who have taken a stand to not do this with their cards, but sadly, I've watched some whose cards I truly love begin to lose hope.  For the record, I do also admire and appreciate all those who do enjoy creating cards for multiple categories.  I just wish we could find a way of balancing exposure for those who do not.  
 
That's my 2 cents, but it's probably worth less than that in US today  
 
Teri
 

Quote from Mindy on Apr 24^th, 2008, 1:02pm:

 
Quote:
?!??!?   This is the circular reasoning we're talking about here!  It seems to be saying that 45,000 cards of 9000 artists "aren't likely to be purchased" because they don't fit into the "Most Popular" formula, which are the cards that HAVE been purchased!
 
Let's put the Coca Cola out front 'cause everyone buys Coke and hide the Orange Nehi in the back room. . . Gee I didn't even realize you had Orange Nehi!

Hi Donna,
 
I appreciate your wish to be even-handed but, as you said, this is about justice. Any decision/policy that favours the few over the majority cannot possibly be called "fair". Therefore, #1 in this round of posts i.e. the presence of the Most Popular, Most Visited, GCU Picks, Most Favorited, and Best Sellers, as well as organising categories by "Most Popular" is not really serving ALL artists at GCU - it serves the few.
 
#2, the use of an image multiple times, is more tenuous. At present, my understanding is GCU's policy is that an image can be used three times if there are no distinguishing words on the card front or as many times as you like if there are. The problem is that it is quite obvious that some images have been used in excess of 50 times and have been spread across many categories. Again, for the shopper that comes in off a very specific Google search, this may not be an issue. However, my example search "Mothers Day yellow rose" cited earlier in this thread yields only 33 cards in the results. Eleven of these are the exact same image - one third of the results, and it's not even a yellow rose (completely another issue that has been dealt with elsewhere)! Not good at all. This is not a swipe at this artist - she is not breaking the rules as they stand and the image is excellent - but it makes GCU look bad and, quite frankly obviates the reason why most shoppers would come to GCU which is for a more personal shopping experience. Maybe the multiple image policy needs to be revisited.
 
Cheers,
 
 
Rosanne
 

Mindy or Shaun,
 
I'm sure that we all could continue to discuss the two points that have been raised in this series of posts, but we are not in the position to actually change anything ourselves. Hearing from those who can effect change and do make the policies would be really good.
 
Thank you.
 
Cheers,
 
 
Rosanne