foodgawker: Is It Still Worth The Effort?
foodgawker: Is It Still Worth The Effort?
This post is aimed towards food bloggers, but if you just love food, or are looking for a place to find recipes for more food, there's some interesting info below.
What the heck is foodgawker and is it still worth the effort?
Most every online foodie, almost every food blogger with a site, knows the highs and lows of submitting their work to foodgawker.
From their site: foodgawker is an online platform that enables its users to search and share recipes, techniques, and ingredients with others.
And of course, their site: foodgawker.com
Think food recipes with pictures.
Gorgeous, beautiful, artful, photographs.
The photographs make you drool and put you in the mood to cook (and eat!), but all you really want is for your submitted photos to get accepted.
You live for the ecstasy of the win and try to avoid the defeat of a try again, sucka.
My initial thought is that foodgawker is still worth the effort.
Why?
foodgawker (they don't capitalize their name for all who just started twitching) helps build traffic and trustworthiness for your food posts and your site.
You gain that trust through your expertise in the arena of all things food and in terms of eyes (traffic!) on your lovely food photos.
That's always worth the effort.
My adventure in submitting to foodgawker began May 30th, 2013.
After more rejection than acceptance, I began to wonder if having my photographs featured on their site was still worth my failing efforts.
Submitting photographs to gawker:
(note: all of the following photos have text, but the ones I submitted were sans text, because foodgawker doesn't allow any text on the photos you submit to them)
A variation of cake was my very first submission.
This photo of my Manhattan Cheesecake got rejected for "food/photo styling" and upon reading said rejection, I was instantly all eye-rolls and huffy-talk.
Yeah.
I now see the food/photo styling issues, but back then it was a mystery to me.
I just wanted another piece of cheesecake and some validation, yo.
My Customizable Cheese Ball photo came back with this rejection: awkward angle photo.
Doesn't look awkward to me. I'd eat it. Gosh.
And my World's Easiest Cheesecake Pie?
It got this rejection: low lighting.
In the beginning, my rejections obviously didn't matter too much to me.
I didn't spent much time at food gawker doing my homework, like noting what type of photos they were looking for or paying attention to the photos that got featured, I simply sent whatever food picture I currently had available.
I took the throw-the-cooked-pasta-on-the-wall tactic when sending photos. Did it stick?!
Mostly, no - they didn't stick.
After 17 rejections over a year's time (I'm a persistent monkey), I decided that instead of scoffing at foodgawker's generalized feedback when I was rejected, I'd pay closer attention to the styling they were publishing and resubmit the same post with the same pic, albeit tweaked anew using their feedback.
It worked.
Examples of foodgawker's feedback:
- low lighting and/or underexposed (I think that some of foodgawker's pics are overexposed, so I would frequently argue with the email rejection)
- composition - awkward angle ( I got this one frequently!)
- composition too tight (I love me a close-up)
- food/photo styling (I still have no idea what they mean)
- Please recrop with more space around the dessert, please submit images without text. (I got this rejection on the coffee cake muffin post, which they then accepted after I bumped up the exposure, yet didn't touch the crop because the original shot was tight and it would have been impossible)
I know lots of you have seen these same reasons for rejection and that's okay!
It simply means you are one photo-edit closer to getting featured (I'm also an optimistic monkey).
My best advice, if you really want to get featured at foodgawker, is to go to their site, roam around a bit and get a feel for the pics.
The one thing I didn't do and still don't, is stage my food photos.
I am not a food stylist.
I am a food admirer. A food desirer. A food maker. A food eater.
Thinking about stylizing my food photographs makes me break a sweat.
Here are a few of my easy food photography tips:
- Look at the food, be the food, and try to photograph it in a way that is appealing and drool-worthy to you. If you like it, chances someone else (foodgawker) will too.
- Experiment with close-ups, differing heights and angles.
- Take lots of shots, then pick a few that speak to your inner foodie.
- Be aware of the light and shadows. I always try to shoot in natural light, as it's most flattering to the food.
- Just keep experimenting and soon you'll discover your style.
I like clean lines, bright backgrounds and as little periphery noise as possible.
That being said, I love looking at highly stylized photos of food as well; I just don't execute them very well.
Go with your strengths.
You do you, baby.
To date, these are my features at foodgawker.
I still contend that the muffins are overexposed.
Traffic gained from being featured on foodgawker:
The word on the Internets is that if you're featured on foodgawker you can expect an increase of hits by the 1000s in one day.
That's not my experience.
My experience for my four features was that I saw a bump from 500-1000 hits in one day.
Not bad. I'll take it. I might even dance a little (I will totally dance a little).
Yet, these numbers are not what most folks think such an acceptance will garner.
Maybe it's because I'm a newbie, or maybe it's my content, or maybe that's what one can come to expect as one of the many submissions accepted daily.
I'm always happy to have new eyes on my site, so for me, it's a win.
Getting rejected from foodgawker:
The pain! The agony! The disappointment! The rationalization!
There are lots of posts in the cloud about how foodgawker no longer matters, how foodgawker is no longer of any consequence in the food game, how foodgawker is too big for their britches.
How dare they reject me!
There are new contenders for foodgawker throne almost every day.
There are sites where it's easier to get accepted.
There are sites that are more inclusive.
Ha! Take that foodgawker! They accepted me!
Does it matter? Does foodgawker really matter?
I think so.
Pro Food Blogger thinks so.
Cliffs Notes on what ProFoodBlogger.com thinks about foodgawker:
It's simply not about the numbers you gain in traffic from FG, it's the quality of those numbers.
Folks who work in the industry hang out there, always on the prowl for the next thang.
It's about networking in a community that loves food, lives for food, is all about food. It's about making foodie friends.
FOOD FOOD FOOD!
So, yes, it still matters to get accepted at foodgawker.
Foodie recipe websites other than foodgawker abound.
Many other websites featuring amazing photos of stylized food.
Here are two of them:
Yummly is the easiest to submit your food photos.
Place a social media button on your site and click to submit your photos.
When you sign-up, you have your own feed so you can check out what you have saved or shared.
Easy!
Friddg is also pretty laid back about what gets approved.
What gets published?
Most everything.
The secret sauce with traffic from Fridgg is getting featured on the front page.
How do you that?
From their FAQ: We have a special algorithm that takes into account pageviews, likes, comments, social sharing, and how long each photo has been around, and uses a combination of those values to calculate a score for each photo. When a photo reaches a certain score, it automatically gets pushed to the front page. This way, only photos that your peers find interesting or good-looking get to the front page. So it's important for you to check out and interact with the photos you like!
Other recipe Sharing sites include:
After knowing all this: Is foodgawker worth the effort?
That depends.
I think with everything, you need to ask yourself what it is you want or expect.
You. Not them.
Take a hot minute and decide if the extended effort is worth your time.
Can you take rejection?
Do you welcome constructive criticism (however vague)?
Can you handle frustration when faced with no easy or concrete answers?
Are you looking for just an uptick in traffic numbers or are you looking towards building something?
Be honest with yourself. No right answer here, simply what you are looking to gain.
If you think you're up for the challenge, then absolutely, foodgawker and all that it can offer you and your site, is worth the effort.
So are the others, by the way.
One more thing, just because I've been accepted and featured at foodgawker doesn't mean I'm always accepted.
Matter of fact, while I was writing this post, I got a rejection email.
Primary reason: Photo/food composition
No biggie.
I immediately thought of the next photo that could be tweaked and submitted.
I have found that if I take the reason for rejection seriously, then adjust the edit for the same picture - just tweaked a bit - and resend (many times within 30 minutes after getting the rejection), it's easier to gain a win and get accepted.
They have a business to run and they want what they want.
Just like you.
You want what you want when you want it!
Moral of the story: Try, try again, mah babies!
What do you think?
Is foodgawker still worth the effort for you?
Original post: October 31, 2014 ~ Updated Post: January 20, 2023
If you like food, here are a few of my favs from foodgawker:
Hands Down The Best Cake Filling You'll Ever Eat!
Oh, mamacita - this filling...there aren't enough glorious adjectives to help me persuade you to try this recipe, so just try it, would ya?
Foodgawker approved!
How to Cook Burgers in the Oven
Maybe it's cold outside and you really don't want to fire up the grill for a moist delicious hamburger.
Solution: Make 'em in the oven!
Easy Crock Pot Country Style Pork Ribs
Once I said "crockpot" your decision should have been made.
MAKE THESE!
Easy. Flavorful. Family fav.
Thank you for reading! I hope you found at least one thing you'll make (start with the cake filling!!!) as I jibber jabbered about Foodgawker: Is it Still Worth It?
For me.. as of now.. it's a challenge. In my head, I think 'I am going to win this! I will NOT BE TOLD NO'. So if the or when the day comes that I am accepted it will make it that much more exciting. I've only submitted 3.. I like how they tell you the 'why's', but for me... I'm no pro.. it's hard and I forget to even submit.
I was denied THREE times yesterday. Same photo, tweaked to the reason for rejection. Ah, foodgawker! Keep up the good fight! I'm rooting for you!
Great post! I have heard that it depends on the editor per day, and a lot of it is not done by photographers, but just people like you and me and what they like. That being said, they have BEAUTIFUL photos up there, so I get the whole exclusive thing. I submitted photos actually more FOR the feedback because I liked mine but wanted to see what they thought. Rejected for underexposure. This helped me learn about light and be more aware that I tend like LIKE what they consider underexposed. A great tool to help is the food photography ebook by Pinch of Yum! Thanks for posting this and letting us know we aren't alone getting rejected! And OH it feels so sweet when they are accepted. 🙂
I've read the same things. The feedback is definitely vague, and it's for that reason that I think becoming familiar with the kinds of pics they publish is important. And you're right...feels good to get accepted!
It's funny - I just barely discovered foodgawker & have been rejected both (or was it 3?) times I submitted. It was I think usually the noise that did it, but a lot of that is just the camera I have (I can't push the ISO up very high). I've vowed to make friends with my tripod so I could decrease my shutter speed & lower the ISO, but for me it's way more about the challenge of getting a worthy photo than the numbers. And yet, I gotta admit that those numbers sound awesome! This was a really informative post for me - thank you!!!!
I got another photo accepted today, yet feel it's overexposed, but I think I've figured out something. They only do a smaller version of the pic and when you take a regular shot and it's reduced in size it can (to me) look overexposed in the bigger version. The photo that was accepted today was the cheesecake pie. Those chips are dark chocolate chips, yet in the pic appear to be milk chocolate. Makes we want to go in and decrease exposure on that baby! Glad I could shed some light (groan) on foodgawker for you.
I get the same rejections from craftgawker. Dwellinggawker hasn't given me problem though. I suppose them being picky about what they accept is better for us because when we do get accepted, we know the readers are there for great photos and that means we puff out or chests and pat our cameras on the head and know we did a good job....that time 🙂
I don't get a tremendous amount of traffic from Foodgawker when accepted but it does make me try harder to take better pictures. WIth every photo I take, I have this crazy desire to get it onto FG. It if gets denied, I tweak the lighting or find a better photo. I become obsessed with getting it right and getting it accepted. Although my traffic from FG isn't huge, you're right that food experts are browsing the site. I've gotten noticed by a couple of big publications who asked for permission to use my photos and link to them because they saw it on FG. Worth it in my opinion.
Oooooh! I love hearing that the biggies have contacted you. Hope for all of us! (i do the same thing with my photos. i submitted one photo with tweaks at least 5 times before it got accepted.)
I always get 'lighting'. No explanations other than that!
Just "lighting" and nothing else? That would be hard to decipher. My biggie is composition or low lighting.
I've been accepted once on foodgawker and the funny thing is it's for a photo I was sure would get rejected! I find it really useful though, not so much for their feedback because it is very vague but it does make me push to get a better photo since I really started from the bottom with food photography. Lately the main rejection reason I get is "unsharp", and I think that's mostly down to my lack of a decent camera (latest was a photo from this post: giraffescanbake.com/breakfast/chocolate-chip-cake-batter-pancakes/) .But I'm hopefully getting my hands on a decent camera soon so can start having a bit more of a shot at it! (I can't help but wonder what they'd say if they knew the photo the accepted from me was taken on an iphone haha)
Great post, thanks for sharing I'm glad to see others feel like me when it comes to foodgawker!
Those pancakes look amazing! The first pic looks like a winner, except you'd have to ditch the text. Did you send that one?
It is incredibly frustrating, but, for me, worth the effort. Thanks for the fun!
Yeah, I sent that one in sans text and was told it was "unsharp", it's always disappointing when you get rejected but I agree, I do think it's worth the effort even when you don't get accepted so I will keep trying!
Did you try to use a photo editor to see if you could sharpen the photo?
For some reason, I didn't think to try that. Gonna give it a go and try again, thanks!
I'm willing to bet it gets in with a tweak on the sharpness. Good Luck!
With the plethora of professional looking food blogs online I feel reluctant to blog my recipes or submit to foodgawker, even though I know many of my recipes are family heirlooms that should be shared.
I hope you won't give up submitting--for every rejection a n accetance is waitng!
This was really interesting to read because I've struggled with foodgawker myself. I'd say yes, it is still worth the effort for me because my blog is pretty small so any new views is a blessing. However, I do get really frustrated in the submission process. I've had some accepted that now I look back I think 'how did they not say that was poorly lit' and have seen some accepted from other people that I know were of much lower quality than some of mine that were rejected. Recently I'm having a lot of trouble getting accepted and the reasons are obviously purely opinion based. I've had a lot of awkward angles and food styling based rejections. My thoughts have been is it hell awkward, I've used that same angle for most of my photos, and what's wrong with the styling, I've just seen a page full with that same appearance! And yet I keep trying. I need all the help I can get to grow my little blog. Plus, it does feel good when you do get one accepted doesn't it? =)
I love this post . What to say, what to say about food gawker. I've just learnt to accept them for who are. Acceptance of photos i think is down to the editor. What is awkward angle though?