My site did not get listed ...

[faxxaff]

but why ?

http://thailandsexguide.com/thai_coeds/

[RawAlex]

Mostly I would say it has to do with tables that are too wide (5 * 152 = 760, after about 720-725 things start to scroll sideways).

Your four link offs to other sites on your index page won't help you out either.

Alex

[X-Drive]

I think it mostly because of 4 links at the bottom of the warning page.

> - no more than 3 banners/links to sponsors on each page

Or perhaps you have overused content.

2RawAlex: There is nothing wrong with tables 760px is just fine. You start to have sideway scrolls when the width is over 770-780px, set screen resolution to 800x600 and see for yourself.

[RawAlex]

Sorry, but the scroll bar appears on the bottom at as little as 720, depending on the browser settings. Check to make sure your text sizes and (in the browser) and on the desktop are set correctly... if you are using odd pitches or smaller text, then you can actually run slightly larger tables without getting hit.

760 will evoke a scroll bar every time.

Alex

[X-Drive]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Sorry, but the scroll bar appears on the bottom at as little as 720, depending on the browser settings. Check to make sure your text sizes and (in the browser) and on the desktop are set correctly... if you are using odd pitches or smaller text, then you can actually run slightly larger tables without getting hit.

760 will evoke a scroll bar every time.
Alex

You are wrong, please do read this design tip: http://www.thetemplatestore.com/help/tables.asp#design3
I've been doing a lot of disigns lately and I can assure you that 760px fits just fine to 800x600 resolution.

[neticule]

I think what alex is saying, is with his personal settings in his browser (text size, etc) it makes it scroll. at default settings, it should not scroll, but if your text size is larger then default it will.

I assume this is what he is saying, please correct me if im wrong.

[faxxaff]

Thanks for the input. I will remove the links on the bottom. However, these are not sponsors, just other linklists, that link back ... so less sites that will link back to my site as a result of removing them. The 760 width should be no problem. There are definately no bars on the bottom of my browsers when I test them on 800x600 resolution.

[neticule]

faxx, just keep all of your recip links in the same spot, otherwise mistakes like this will be made, as well as some people will feel you are playing "favorites" and not giving them as fair of a recip link.

[HC-Majick]

These numbers are taken from Macromedia's website:
Browser Resolution ~Inner width
IE 5+ Win 800x600 ~780
IE 5 Mac 800x600 ~748
IE 4.5 Mac 800x600 ~744
Netscape 6+ Win 800x600 ~775
Netscape 6.2 Mac 800x600 ~763

Here's "safe recommendations" from Webmonkey:http://webmonkey.wired.com/webmonkey...html?tw=design

[X-Drive]

I can say that I have about 3% of Mac users on my domains, which is insignificant.
And I really don't think that Mac users like MS IE(they have Safari), which makes that % even smaller.

[swedguy]

Originally Posted by majick

IE 5+ Win 800x600 ~780

Odd. I get a scroll on anything over 760 in IE6 with all settings set to default.

[HC-Majick]

Originally Posted by swedguy

Odd. I get a scroll on anything over 760 in IE6 with all settings set to default.

I believe those numbers are with setting the page margins to 0 and not having a verticle scroll bar, because I get scrolls below the 780 too. I always set my tables to 740 max.

[Cleo]

I don't know too many Mac users that normally surf with IE. Most that I know either use Safari, most do, or use one of the Mozilla flavors.

I do use Mac IE for doing reviews since it is such a POS and not forgiving at all of coding errors or mouseover code.

[Ramster]

Originally Posted by faxxaff

but why ?

http://thailandsexguide.com/thai_coeds/

Forget about the width. You have 4 links out on the bottom of the index. That's a problem.

[RawAlex]

neticule, I am using 100% standard settings, nothing special. It isn't a question of if it scrolls, but does a scroll bar appear on the bottom of the page.

Unless you are putting in leftmargin and rightmargin body tags and setting them to 0 (to reclaim the default 5 - 10 pixels on each side) then the scroll bar will appear as early as 730's... it is a royal pain in the ass, I know, but that is the reality of the situation.

The 4 links on the bottom are the reason most of us wouldn't list it, we wouldn't get as far as the galleries. But once I got to the galleries, I knew this was going to be an issue. 740-750, it MIGHT get by... but at 760, I know scroll bars are appearing all over the place.

Alex

[faxxaff]

get a life guys!!!!

U can clearly see all pages on 800 x 600 settings. So who cares if u see bars in IE or not and scroll 2 or 3 pixels from the left to the right and back? If I have to worry about stuff like that I will give up building sites. Either the site is okay or not .... but if you judge about a few pixels of width .... that is absolutely rediculous !!!

I can understand about the bottom links ... I will remove them .... even if that means less traffic and a lower page rank .... it is no harm to me ....

keep it easy .-)

[Thumbler]

Originally Posted by faxxaff

If I have to worry about stuff like that I will give up building sites.

What are you going to do instead?

[HappySmut]

i make sites starting off with a single table thats align center at 710 pixels and then i drop my 100% width tables inside of it. you can setup your main table to be max of 95% but for those people on high resolutions your website will be too spaced out looking. and for people on 640by480 its going to look too big but who uses that low res anyway?

[venturi]

Originally Posted by faxxaff

get a life guys!!!!

U can clearly see all pages on 800 x 600 settings. So who cares if u see bars in IE or not and scroll 2 or 3 pixels from the left to the right and back? If I have to worry about stuff like that I will give up building sites. Either the site is okay or not .... but if you judge about a few pixels of width .... that is absolutely rediculous !!!

I can understand about the bottom links ... I will remove them .... even if that means less traffic and a lower page rank .... it is no harm to me ....

keep it easy .-)

Well, I don't do reviews anymore because Mishi fired me (I was too much of a meanie ) ... but I wouldn't have listed you on our own linklist because your site is just three galleries and no marketing whatsoever. Potential scrolling issues and everything else aside, I won't approve sites that appear to be built by individuals that just discovered FrontPage and think it's still 1996 when you could toss up anything and make money off it.

Plus your logo itself, on main.htm, is a blind link to your sponsor - major no-no.

Perhaps rather than biting the hand that ever so nicely fed you when you asked for free advice, your time might be better served by listening to the advice and fixing your own fuck ups?

Or... were you just here to bitch and whine because you already know everything?

[swedguy]

This time I rejected it because your pics are huge. I only waited for 1 to load and it was 136kB. Compress your pics.

[Ramster]

Stop your bitching and build the sites they way they want them or get your traffic somewhere else.

WTF do people come here for help and when they get it they complain?

You asked for guidence and you got it. Now make your table 740 or 720 or whatever. Does it hurt you to make the table smaller? No!!!!!! Are some rules "picky"? Maybe. But those are the rules and believe me I've seen some fucked up ones in the past however when I'm trying to get traffic from someone else I try to abide by their rules.

[RawAlex]

rules = traffic.

no rules = no traffic.

The rest is, well, food for the birds.

Want the traffic, do the deal. Don't want the traffic move on.

Alex

[faxxaff]

Sorry, I did not mean to be rude.

According to a message that I received when I submitted my site to lor, I was believing that if I post here I would get the exact reason(s) why my site might have been rejected.

I appreciate the opinions of the people that posted, but I am still clueless to what the real reason was why it did not make it on the greenguy ... That's all I wanted to know.

The site got listed on persiankitty and some other sites, so traffic is already flowing for months and other sites that list me will benefit from this traffic .... it is giving and taking. Of course I can duplicate the site with some recips just to have it suit some submission guidelines but that would be contraproductive for the linkslists as it would mean less traffic rom the recips.

I just have to find a balance between the guidelines .... and that is why I was hoping to get facts here as I am unfamiliar with lor so far.

Each list has different rules and it has pros and cons. That's why such a forum like this one is making great sense.

BTW: Is frontpage available for mac?

[Thumbler]

Originally Posted by faxxaff

I appreciate the opinions of the people that posted, but I am still clueless to what the real reason was why it did not make it on the greenguy ... That's all I wanted to know.

Maybe if you'd mentioned LOR in your question you would have found out...... I thought you were just asking a general question (as I am sure other people did) and didn't realize you were specifically asking about LOR

[Pagan]

Faxxaff, the leaner and cleaner you learn to build, the happier the surfers and LinkLists will be. Don't even think about using FrontPage or Microsoft Word - they throw in HIDEOUS amounts of code that you don't need. Huge pages load slower and make for unhappy surfers.

Your picture file sizes really should not be much over say 60K so that they load faster. You can easily pick a nice file size and have them all at this level. Most of mine are in the 50-60K range. The table size *is* an issue because many surfers don't like to see just part of what you have - they want to see it all with no scrollbars. Heck, half of them don't even know what one is or how to use it. (Well, maybe not half, but a good percentage!) I set all of my tables to be no larger than 700 pixels wide, just to be safe.

The rules the LL owners have put in place are standards they think their surfers want to see. If you don't want to meet those standards, don't submit to their sites. Places like Cleo's and LOR are very tough to be accepted by for a reason - everyone turns to them and it is expected that only the best will be listed. These guys here make a lot of sense, and don't say stuff just to be mean. They all reserve the right to turn down a site just because they don't like it. Maybe the content is overexposed for their lists. And, I have had PK accept sites that others deny and vice versa.

There are a number of great threads on how to build free sites AND advertise AND make money. If you are dead serious about this and want to work your fingers off, I can suggest BetaBrigade as a start for a group to work with. If you don't want some structure and can handle learning on your own, this forum and Netpond have awesome information just waiting for you.

Last huge hint... study sites on the LLs that you want to list you. Ask yourself if your sites also follow the same rules. Notice the construction of the gallery pages with the placement of ads and navigation. Study that main.htm page... what's on there? What's missing? The best place for those recips is on the index page, above the enter link.

Lots of little things here, believe me. This is NOT an easy industry to take part in, but it can be very rewarding.

<dancing cuz I finally had a site listed on both GG & PK at the same time!!>