Anyone has any idea what this site is doing with my site? It is doing a lots of things like ranking, passing its opinions etc. But I do not know nothing about it.
Is it go
From what I can see it's a site that you can use to check a site's status before buying. It's not a particularly attractive site - white ads on an orange background (ugh!), however my site checker found nothing wrong with it.
It is providing some data like I have a short domain span that is not reliable which might have some negative impact on visitors.
See more comments
http://www.scamadviser.com/ what this site doing with my site?
Anyone has any idea what this site is doing with my site? It is doing a lots of things like ranking, passing its opinions etc. But I do not know nothing about it.
Is it go
Put www.wealthyaffiliate in and see - 100% safe. Use it to check any site I find am unsure of.
You have to put in your URL to search it. Did you?
They would have had to, to form an opinion. Anyone can access your site if they know your URL. Anyone can enter your URL to check your site for security.
Read the About us and their trust seal. They reveal sites not to buy from. Also they show the 10 sites everyday not to buy from.
As long as we do good business there is nothing to worry about since we are hosted by WA. As we know scam and fraud is all over the net with no legal way to remove them. Google has pulled sites. Reporting scammers and fraudulent sites and writing about them is what we need to do.
From what I can see it's a site that you can use to check a site's status before buying. It's not a particularly attractive site - white ads on an orange background (ugh!), however my site checker found nothing wrong with it.
It is providing some data like I have a short domain span that is not reliable which might have some negative impact on visitors.
See more comments
I see many members are choosing a meaningless and some times very peculiar user ID. Many of the members also giving pet pictures and a lot of members are with the same pictures.
I agree with the opinion that a picture should be used...ha, see, I don't have mine yet. But I will.
Like Ski2823 said, no picture or a random one makes you look like you are hiding or not serious. I have heard Jay mention a photo of yourself looking straight on/with a white background is one good way to do it.
@Jenna7, yes Jay pointed to a right concept. If you look for big guys in tech world you will see most of them have a smiling face in their photos.
Branding is key. Am wanting to link my sites with my G+ profile which is in my real name, known professionally but not in IM.
My name used here and my pic are who I really am wanting to brand worldwide. A conundrum having yet to find a solution or ask @Rich. The question remains, what is in a name when good content and sincerity is attainable with my nickname known to most everyone - family, friend or colleague? Thank you, Willow Tech (aka ?) ^_~0035/8/4
@caylynn, as I learnt trust building is the most important thing in online business I am gradually shifting to it. I assume it is possible to brand both my logo and my name everywhere!
I agree.
My take on this is that if I see either a blank profile picture or just a random picture, it makes it look like you are trying to hide and you are not being serious.
I agree with Rich on the reason why some my not to choose to load a true pic of them selves at first.
Yeah, I could say that the horse I am on is Sky, but Sky is another horse of mine. He was my first horse. The one I am on is one of my Arabs Windy. But I wanted something that showed me and my horse that wasn't to much action for my profile pic.
I think this is mainly because people signing up for the Starter Membership select one of the standard pictures rather than upload their own. This is understandable, they want to see what's here and whether WA is for them or not. I know one of the issues as far as user names is that with 100,000+ membership it's become a lot harder to create branded, friendly names, especially if people aren't keen to use their real full names, etc. Rich.
Most definitely have to agree with you. People are more keen to read posts from someone who seems professional and also who is recognized within a community or his/her field of work.
Keep up the good work and have a great day.
Actually I was talking about a more serious topic. In Online business the trust is the most important thing you need to succeed.
How would people know you? In Google+? In Facebook, LinkedIn? Why you pay 10 times price for a product? Why are you in the queue for 48 hours to buy a product?
All stems from trust. If people see your pet and it is likely that other people has got the same pic, where are you then?
To BRAND yourself you need a real good planning!
Thank you. That inspiring. I am still wandering why nobody is talking about such an important issue?
See more comments
I see many members are choosing a meaningless and some times very peculiar user ID. Many of the members also giving pet pictures and a lot of members are with the same pictures.
I agree with the opinion that a picture should be used...ha, see, I don't have mine yet. But I will.
Like Ski2823 said, no picture or a random one makes you look like you are hiding or not serious. I have heard Jay mention a photo of yourself looking straight on/with a white background is one good way to do it.
@Jenna7, yes Jay pointed to a right concept. If you look for big guys in tech world you will see most of them have a smiling face in their photos.
Branding is key. Am wanting to link my sites with my G+ profile which is in my real name, known professionally but not in IM.
My name used here and my pic are who I really am wanting to brand worldwide. A conundrum having yet to find a solution or ask @Rich. The question remains, what is in a name when good content and sincerity is attainable with my nickname known to most everyone - family, friend or colleague? Thank you, Willow Tech (aka ?) ^_~0035/8/4
@caylynn, as I learnt trust building is the most important thing in online business I am gradually shifting to it. I assume it is possible to brand both my logo and my name everywhere!
I agree.
My take on this is that if I see either a blank profile picture or just a random picture, it makes it look like you are trying to hide and you are not being serious.
I agree with Rich on the reason why some my not to choose to load a true pic of them selves at first.
Yeah, I could say that the horse I am on is Sky, but Sky is another horse of mine. He was my first horse. The one I am on is one of my Arabs Windy. But I wanted something that showed me and my horse that wasn't to much action for my profile pic.
I think this is mainly because people signing up for the Starter Membership select one of the standard pictures rather than upload their own. This is understandable, they want to see what's here and whether WA is for them or not. I know one of the issues as far as user names is that with 100,000+ membership it's become a lot harder to create branded, friendly names, especially if people aren't keen to use their real full names, etc. Rich.
Most definitely have to agree with you. People are more keen to read posts from someone who seems professional and also who is recognized within a community or his/her field of work.
Keep up the good work and have a great day.
Actually I was talking about a more serious topic. In Online business the trust is the most important thing you need to succeed.
How would people know you? In Google+? In Facebook, LinkedIn? Why you pay 10 times price for a product? Why are you in the queue for 48 hours to buy a product?
All stems from trust. If people see your pet and it is likely that other people has got the same pic, where are you then?
To BRAND yourself you need a real good planning!
Thank you. That inspiring. I am still wandering why nobody is talking about such an important issue?
See more comments
When to use child theme in a wordpress site? Is it only for the advanced user or the developer?
I agree with Rich too, you only need a Child theme if you intend on making custom changes.
I use child themes on some sites, just because I can play around and edit my css and theme functions without breaking the main theme. If and when the author updates the theme my changes aren't lost either, but if you have a backup it's not much of a big deal anyway.
Just wanted to emphasise, if you want to play around with CSS then you don't need a child theme. If you create a "custom.css" stylesheet, this will override whatever is within your themes "style.css" stylesheet and therefore any mods you make within "custom.css" aren't destructive, ie. they can always be deleted or changed without permanently damaging your themes "style.css". Rich.
I'd never recommend building a Child Theme unless you have a specific reason, such as intending to make a lot of changes within the php. Child Themes are not updated when the core theme is updated so they can become incompatible with updates to WordPress, plug-ins, etc. Rich.
See more comments
Child theme in a Wordpress site?
When to use child theme in a wordpress site? Is it only for the advanced user or the developer?
I agree with Rich too, you only need a Child theme if you intend on making custom changes.
I use child themes on some sites, just because I can play around and edit my css and theme functions without breaking the main theme. If and when the author updates the theme my changes aren't lost either, but if you have a backup it's not much of a big deal anyway.
Just wanted to emphasise, if you want to play around with CSS then you don't need a child theme. If you create a "custom.css" stylesheet, this will override whatever is within your themes "style.css" stylesheet and therefore any mods you make within "custom.css" aren't destructive, ie. they can always be deleted or changed without permanently damaging your themes "style.css". Rich.
I'd never recommend building a Child Theme unless you have a specific reason, such as intending to make a lot of changes within the php. Child Themes are not updated when the core theme is updated so they can become incompatible with updates to WordPress, plug-ins, etc. Rich.
See more comments
There are lot of images come as a search result when I use the "free" with the image search. But how to confirm that it is not copyrighted? Available publicly?
WillowTech, I just wanted to thank you, Jack, and Rich for addressing this very important issue. My site is hugely image-dependent. So, I've always been concerned about how best to handle the images I choose to use.
After absorbing all of the great information provided in this thread today, I bought a subscription to Fotolia (Thanks, Rich!). To my surprise, I found a plethora of photos there that fit my niche and blog requirements perfectly!
Also, I re-examined the Flickr and Wikimedia Commons images I had used and reworked my blog pages so that I properly attribute the images to their creators -- all according to their CC licensing requirements (Thanks, Jack!).
Now, I feel much more confident that my blogsite is now on the up-and-up regarding copyright infringement issues. Again, thanks to you all for your insight!
~Marie
Hey guys, look, don't let this turn into a mass debate about the rights and wrongs of property rights.
I just wanted to give some direction to the OP, to try and steer them away from doing "free" image searching.
If you stick with reputable sites that recognize the CC licences correctly and communicate that adequately to their users that are uploading the images then you should be ok.
Creative Commons is an excellent resource that i applaud.
Here are some links for further information about copyright, Creative commons etc.
http://creativecommons.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons
http://commons.wikimedia.org/
http://www.copyrightlaws.com/us/legally-using-images/
http://www.authormedia.com/11-places-to-get-a-free-and-legal-photo-for-your-blog/
Best wishes
Jack
Jack, if only Creative Commons was respected and used as their terms require then I'd whole-heartedly agree with you. I love CC but it is hugely risky now for those who don't understand that it is totally devalued by sites like Flickr and every user must do their due diligence and take extreme care. Here's a classic example, http://www.flickr.com/photos/53558245@N02/ These images are labelled CC-A (atttribution) but the person who uploaded them isn't the copyright holder. However, search engines, services and plug-ins that find CC images don't discriminate. If you rely on the CC labelling and put one of those images on your site don't be surprised if you receive a substantial bill as I recognise most of them as being Rights Managed. I'm giving best advice here but you or anyone else is completely free to ignore it. If a newcomer's site tanks or they get clobbered with a massive demand for damages, it wasn't because I at least didn't try to warn them of the risks involved in relying on CC as some form of official authorisation or panacea that will protect them from the legal consequences of even inadvertently misusing someone else's images on their website. Rich.
Jack, thank you for replying. Right now as I am in a rush I just wanted to make sure that the image I am using is okay. I think if there is some resources where free images are available will be helpful right now.
I have encourtered some sites where meta tag says they are providing free images but when I try to see them I got water marks and the rates for bigger size. It very annoying and really time consuming.
Would be a probability that I can use a small image free from a site like Shutter Lock when it is small but need to pay for the larger image?
Thank you Good Man. That what exactly I was trying to tell. Actually I could not express properly. I had tried to understand CC once. I found it so complicated and vague termed that I totally lost.
At a stage it seems to me that some guys created this to have some fishing in the water.
In this discussion what I was looking for is a resource that has been trialed and tested by some of our members.
That is the best way you guys can help the newbies.
Thank you again for the suggestion.
I am very new and naïve clearly. I still think It seems like its more like Walmart selling you something that is hot and you getting arrested for it when it came off their shelf rather than them for selling hot merchandise. But alas, I know it doesn't matter what I think when it comes to getting tagged...
OK, perhaps an example might help. How do you feel about me using this http://d.pr/i/OSUS on a site to illustrate an article about poor standards of teaching or this http://d.pr/i/6cHX to illustrate animal cruelty? If you send a mate some pics of kids and they share them on their Flickr stream or via Facebook and Twitter and someone else then goes on to use them to illustrate a site about child abuse or an elderly relative gets depicted on a site about the tragedy of dementia, what then? Do you believe, as the photographer and therefore the copyright holder you don't have any rights or recourse to legal redress? Do you believe the people depicted don't have any?! Rich.
You are missing my point. I am not at all saying people shouldn't have any redress for violations of copyright. I am asking why the consumer who innocently uses an image that s/he is told is free is the one to blame rather than the company that wrongly labeled it as such. I thought I was pretty clear about my concern with that, and I did also state that it obviously wouldn't matter what I thought, but it seems more just that whoever is going after the consumer ought to get the source instead.
I understand your frustration, it's shared. However, you're not the consumer of the image. The visitor to your site is. You're the one who *materially* benefits from a *stolen* image by taking it, uploading it and then *supplying* it to the visitor to promote your site. I'm afraid it's that simple from a legal standpoint in most jurisdictions. Rich.
Whoa...that seems harsh if you are using a plugin that says it's free or 1.00. How come they wouldn't be the ones in trouble?
If I tell you it's OK to go into Walmart and steal stuff and you do, who commits the theft? If you're a shop (website) owner and displaying stolen goods, who do you think is liable? I'm sure you appreciate that wandering over to a filesharing site and downloading the latest hit music album or Hollywood blockbuster isn't a sensible idea. The same applies to photography. It's still theft and you're the one that's open to *prosecution*. Also, it's important to remember that WordPress is *opensource*, anyone can upload themes, plugins, etc. so not all are safe, in fact some are deliberately engineered to do nefarious things to your site. Rich.
I'm with Jack in that it's easiest, safest and you'll get the most relevant images by using a paid for stock library. In my case, I usually recommend. http://www.fotolia.com as a first port of call. Their prices start at c.$1 to licence an image on an ad-hoc basis and less than 30¢ each via a short subscription which permits multiple purchases within a certain time frame, usually a month.
There are also some legitimate free resources such as http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/images/ where in that example, Microsoft is covering the licence fees from the stock libraries or owns the copyright of the images itself.
I'd have to sadly disagree and strongly suggest avoiding Creative Commons or any other services such as Flickr and plug-ins that use CC like PhotoDropper or PhotoPin unless you are willing to do some due diligence and are absolutely sure that the person who uploaded them and is making the images available is actually the copyright holder. You risk the possibility of substantial *fines* even if you make an honest mistake, often in the region of c.$3,000 per image if it belongs to one of the major stock libraries.
I'd also only recommend using pictures of people or private property which have been sourced from a stock library as signed model and property releases need to be in place and this is often impossible to verify elsewhere.
If you do receive a bill from a reputable stock library such as Getty for the misuse of an image on your website, settle it immediately and argue afterwards. There have been cases where simply stating that it was a *mistake* and that the image has been removed and trying to negotiate beforehand has caused such bills to rocket into enormous sums, $40,000+ in several cases and the website owner has then been forced to pay these massive amounts to avoid even more costly court cases which they discover after taking legal advice they'd undoubtedly lose.
Also, it's worth noting as well that many of the major stock libraries have agreed with search engines that they can now serve DMCAs directly to them for actioning, which will result in your site instantly being smacked into oblivion in the rankings or deindexed entirely without warning for *theft* if it contains a stock library's copyright material and they have such an agreement in place.
Hope this helps.
Rich. x
@Rich fotolia does not say much about buying their credit. Can you just help by explaining little further?
No probs. Most stock libraries let you either deposit a sum in advance such as $25 and then deduct your usage on a long-term ad-hoc basis. In fotolia's case you can get started with just 10 credits for $14: http://us.fotolia.com/Info/BuyCreditsChooseAmount You then select and buy a licence to use an image, usually the smallest size will be 1 credit with larger sizes costing more credits. Each time you licence an image the credit required will be deducted from your balance. You can usually also subscribe as an alternative for a period of time http://us.fotolia.com/Info/Subscription and they then let you make a number of downloads in a month ie. 5 downloads of their XXL sized images within 30 days for $25 or a daily plan such as 25 downloads a day for 30 days (750 XXL sized images) for $250. You are usually free to use a licenced image as many times and on as many sites as you wish after you've purchased it, ie. the licence is to you as an individual, not to a specific website. Hope that helps! Rich.
Thanks for that. I thought I was using a photo that was free but my website had a big red stop sign instead of the image. Not sure what the error message meant either but the bottom line was clear to me...remove it immediately!
Hi Willow Tech,
The "free" image search is a sketchy method and you are right to question it.
I think your best bet is to do either one of two things:
1. Go to a professional site and buy the images, that way you know that you are within their royalty free terms etc. However that can work out really expensive and its not usually the best route for budding entrepreneurs and internet marketers.
2. Creative Commons licencing. - There are millions of people across the internet that have allowed their lovely images to be copied and used at will.
However! - You should look to familiarise yourself with the terms of each licence type - yes there are still rules to follow and these come in 6 main types usually - see here - http://creativecommons.org/licenses/, the best licence being of course Attribution where you just need to give credit for the work, generally with a link back to the original image.
You can find a lot of CC images at flickr or sites like http://openphoto.net and many many more sites on the web. You can also find plenty of plugins for WP that do all the leg work for you - like WP Photodropper
For me I personally use http://www.everystockphoto.com
Hope that has helped you out a bit.
Best wishes
Jack
See more comments
how to know the image I am using from the net is copyright free
There are lot of images come as a search result when I use the "free" with the image search. But how to confirm that it is not copyrighted? Available publicly?
WillowTech, I just wanted to thank you, Jack, and Rich for addressing this very important issue. My site is hugely image-dependent. So, I've always been concerned about how best to handle the images I choose to use.
After absorbing all of the great information provided in this thread today, I bought a subscription to Fotolia (Thanks, Rich!). To my surprise, I found a plethora of photos there that fit my niche and blog requirements perfectly!
Also, I re-examined the Flickr and Wikimedia Commons images I had used and reworked my blog pages so that I properly attribute the images to their creators -- all according to their CC licensing requirements (Thanks, Jack!).
Now, I feel much more confident that my blogsite is now on the up-and-up regarding copyright infringement issues. Again, thanks to you all for your insight!
~Marie
Hey guys, look, don't let this turn into a mass debate about the rights and wrongs of property rights.
I just wanted to give some direction to the OP, to try and steer them away from doing "free" image searching.
If you stick with reputable sites that recognize the CC licences correctly and communicate that adequately to their users that are uploading the images then you should be ok.
Creative Commons is an excellent resource that i applaud.
Here are some links for further information about copyright, Creative commons etc.
http://creativecommons.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons
http://commons.wikimedia.org/
http://www.copyrightlaws.com/us/legally-using-images/
http://www.authormedia.com/11-places-to-get-a-free-and-legal-photo-for-your-blog/
Best wishes
Jack
Jack, if only Creative Commons was respected and used as their terms require then I'd whole-heartedly agree with you. I love CC but it is hugely risky now for those who don't understand that it is totally devalued by sites like Flickr and every user must do their due diligence and take extreme care. Here's a classic example, http://www.flickr.com/photos/53558245@N02/ These images are labelled CC-A (atttribution) but the person who uploaded them isn't the copyright holder. However, search engines, services and plug-ins that find CC images don't discriminate. If you rely on the CC labelling and put one of those images on your site don't be surprised if you receive a substantial bill as I recognise most of them as being Rights Managed. I'm giving best advice here but you or anyone else is completely free to ignore it. If a newcomer's site tanks or they get clobbered with a massive demand for damages, it wasn't because I at least didn't try to warn them of the risks involved in relying on CC as some form of official authorisation or panacea that will protect them from the legal consequences of even inadvertently misusing someone else's images on their website. Rich.
Jack, thank you for replying. Right now as I am in a rush I just wanted to make sure that the image I am using is okay. I think if there is some resources where free images are available will be helpful right now.
I have encourtered some sites where meta tag says they are providing free images but when I try to see them I got water marks and the rates for bigger size. It very annoying and really time consuming.
Would be a probability that I can use a small image free from a site like Shutter Lock when it is small but need to pay for the larger image?
Thank you Good Man. That what exactly I was trying to tell. Actually I could not express properly. I had tried to understand CC once. I found it so complicated and vague termed that I totally lost.
At a stage it seems to me that some guys created this to have some fishing in the water.
In this discussion what I was looking for is a resource that has been trialed and tested by some of our members.
That is the best way you guys can help the newbies.
Thank you again for the suggestion.
I am very new and naïve clearly. I still think It seems like its more like Walmart selling you something that is hot and you getting arrested for it when it came off their shelf rather than them for selling hot merchandise. But alas, I know it doesn't matter what I think when it comes to getting tagged...
OK, perhaps an example might help. How do you feel about me using this http://d.pr/i/OSUS on a site to illustrate an article about poor standards of teaching or this http://d.pr/i/6cHX to illustrate animal cruelty? If you send a mate some pics of kids and they share them on their Flickr stream or via Facebook and Twitter and someone else then goes on to use them to illustrate a site about child abuse or an elderly relative gets depicted on a site about the tragedy of dementia, what then? Do you believe, as the photographer and therefore the copyright holder you don't have any rights or recourse to legal redress? Do you believe the people depicted don't have any?! Rich.
You are missing my point. I am not at all saying people shouldn't have any redress for violations of copyright. I am asking why the consumer who innocently uses an image that s/he is told is free is the one to blame rather than the company that wrongly labeled it as such. I thought I was pretty clear about my concern with that, and I did also state that it obviously wouldn't matter what I thought, but it seems more just that whoever is going after the consumer ought to get the source instead.
I understand your frustration, it's shared. However, you're not the consumer of the image. The visitor to your site is. You're the one who *materially* benefits from a *stolen* image by taking it, uploading it and then *supplying* it to the visitor to promote your site. I'm afraid it's that simple from a legal standpoint in most jurisdictions. Rich.
Whoa...that seems harsh if you are using a plugin that says it's free or 1.00. How come they wouldn't be the ones in trouble?
If I tell you it's OK to go into Walmart and steal stuff and you do, who commits the theft? If you're a shop (website) owner and displaying stolen goods, who do you think is liable? I'm sure you appreciate that wandering over to a filesharing site and downloading the latest hit music album or Hollywood blockbuster isn't a sensible idea. The same applies to photography. It's still theft and you're the one that's open to *prosecution*. Also, it's important to remember that WordPress is *opensource*, anyone can upload themes, plugins, etc. so not all are safe, in fact some are deliberately engineered to do nefarious things to your site. Rich.
I'm with Jack in that it's easiest, safest and you'll get the most relevant images by using a paid for stock library. In my case, I usually recommend. http://www.fotolia.com as a first port of call. Their prices start at c.$1 to licence an image on an ad-hoc basis and less than 30¢ each via a short subscription which permits multiple purchases within a certain time frame, usually a month.
There are also some legitimate free resources such as http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/images/ where in that example, Microsoft is covering the licence fees from the stock libraries or owns the copyright of the images itself.
I'd have to sadly disagree and strongly suggest avoiding Creative Commons or any other services such as Flickr and plug-ins that use CC like PhotoDropper or PhotoPin unless you are willing to do some due diligence and are absolutely sure that the person who uploaded them and is making the images available is actually the copyright holder. You risk the possibility of substantial *fines* even if you make an honest mistake, often in the region of c.$3,000 per image if it belongs to one of the major stock libraries.
I'd also only recommend using pictures of people or private property which have been sourced from a stock library as signed model and property releases need to be in place and this is often impossible to verify elsewhere.
If you do receive a bill from a reputable stock library such as Getty for the misuse of an image on your website, settle it immediately and argue afterwards. There have been cases where simply stating that it was a *mistake* and that the image has been removed and trying to negotiate beforehand has caused such bills to rocket into enormous sums, $40,000+ in several cases and the website owner has then been forced to pay these massive amounts to avoid even more costly court cases which they discover after taking legal advice they'd undoubtedly lose.
Also, it's worth noting as well that many of the major stock libraries have agreed with search engines that they can now serve DMCAs directly to them for actioning, which will result in your site instantly being smacked into oblivion in the rankings or deindexed entirely without warning for *theft* if it contains a stock library's copyright material and they have such an agreement in place.
Hope this helps.
Rich. x
@Rich fotolia does not say much about buying their credit. Can you just help by explaining little further?
No probs. Most stock libraries let you either deposit a sum in advance such as $25 and then deduct your usage on a long-term ad-hoc basis. In fotolia's case you can get started with just 10 credits for $14: http://us.fotolia.com/Info/BuyCreditsChooseAmount You then select and buy a licence to use an image, usually the smallest size will be 1 credit with larger sizes costing more credits. Each time you licence an image the credit required will be deducted from your balance. You can usually also subscribe as an alternative for a period of time http://us.fotolia.com/Info/Subscription and they then let you make a number of downloads in a month ie. 5 downloads of their XXL sized images within 30 days for $25 or a daily plan such as 25 downloads a day for 30 days (750 XXL sized images) for $250. You are usually free to use a licenced image as many times and on as many sites as you wish after you've purchased it, ie. the licence is to you as an individual, not to a specific website. Hope that helps! Rich.
Thanks for that. I thought I was using a photo that was free but my website had a big red stop sign instead of the image. Not sure what the error message meant either but the bottom line was clear to me...remove it immediately!
Hi Willow Tech,
The "free" image search is a sketchy method and you are right to question it.
I think your best bet is to do either one of two things:
1. Go to a professional site and buy the images, that way you know that you are within their royalty free terms etc. However that can work out really expensive and its not usually the best route for budding entrepreneurs and internet marketers.
2. Creative Commons licencing. - There are millions of people across the internet that have allowed their lovely images to be copied and used at will.
However! - You should look to familiarise yourself with the terms of each licence type - yes there are still rules to follow and these come in 6 main types usually - see here - http://creativecommons.org/licenses/, the best licence being of course Attribution where you just need to give credit for the work, generally with a link back to the original image.
You can find a lot of CC images at flickr or sites like http://openphoto.net and many many more sites on the web. You can also find plenty of plugins for WP that do all the leg work for you - like WP Photodropper
For me I personally use http://www.everystockphoto.com
Hope that has helped you out a bit.
Best wishes
Jack
See more comments
Should I need to put all my header images in in wp-content in hosting area or I can use them from Media library in Wordpress.
It's the same thing. The Media tab simply adds them to a folder, usually wp-content/uploads Rich.
See more comments
Should I need to put all my header images in in wp-content in hosting area or I can use them from Media library in Wordpress.
It's the same thing. The Media tab simply adds them to a folder, usually wp-content/uploads Rich.
See more comments
Put www.wealthyaffiliate in and see - 100% safe. Use it to check any site I find am unsure of.
You have to put in your URL to search it. Did you?
Can they assess my site without letting me know?
They would have had to, to form an opinion. Anyone can access your site if they know your URL. Anyone can enter your URL to check your site for security.
Read the About us and their trust seal. They reveal sites not to buy from. Also they show the 10 sites everyday not to buy from.
As long as we do good business there is nothing to worry about since we are hosted by WA. As we know scam and fraud is all over the net with no legal way to remove them. Google has pulled sites. Reporting scammers and fraudulent sites and writing about them is what we need to do.