What's the current consensus on using phpadsnew (dynamic ads) on freesites?

[Fonz]

The problem with those "rotating" ads is that the reviewer has to see all the ads to know if they're fit for his/her LL. The submitter could throw in ads that are way out of line but only show like 5 times out of hundred. That process takes a lot of time away from the reviewer's other activities. Ok I know you'll probably think: "how much time does it take to refresh the page a couple of times". Well, too much.
I myself only accept those ads from people I know.
Just my $0.02

[ecchi]

Originally Posted by Fonz

Ok I know you'll probably think: "how much time does it take to refresh the page a couple of times". Well, too much.

Fonz, if you don't refresh all pages of all submitted sites a few times then you are automatically accepting sites with dynamic content. If a WM knows his business and does not want the surfer to know he is using some form of CGI he can set up his server to work CGI on .html pages, it does not have to be .shtml and .php. If the dynamic pages are simply to make it easier to change adverts, or to add a 'joke of the day', then he probably won't bother. But if his idea is to cheat the LL owner (eg to sneak in ads for bestiality) then he is going to use something like mod rewrite, and you will never know unless you "refresh a few times".

[Bill]

That's why I'm asking, Fonz, because it's clear that freesites using dynamic ads could be easily abused, if the builder wanted to try to do something sneaky.

And it could be abused by accident, by putting a banner with "enter" or a hardcore image in the campaign that was running on the index page, just because you were in a hurry to enter banners into the software.

If I was going to experiment with dynamic freesites I'd ask all my trusted listers about it before I started.

But I was wondering if there are already people who always build dynamic freesites, if there are linklist owners who hate the idea of dynamic freesites, and so on.

[Useless]

I can think of at least one very respected board member and list owner who uses phpadsnew on free sites. If a stranger submitted a site using it, I'd most likely decline it. With someone I know, as with a great many things, I wouldn't care.

[ecchi]

Originally Posted by Bill

But I was wondering if there are already people who always build dynamic freesites, if there are linklist owners who hate the idea of dynamic freesites, and so on.

When I build a site that is not going to be submitted to link lists I almost always use some form of dynamic content. However when I build free sites to submit to link lists I never do. It keeps everyone happy, but the downside is that link lists never get to list my better sites.

However I do use a Perl program to count traffic and see how much comes from each source (so much easier and quicker that working through my server stats) and since I feel that using mod rewrite to hide this fact is 'cheating' on the LL owners I submit to, my landing page is usually a .shtml page. This means that a few WMs refuse to accept it. If it says in their rules "no .shtml pages", then I simply don't submit to them. But if this is not in their rules, and they don't email me to say this is why they did not list my site, then eventually I am going to see that I get no traffic from them and put them on the "useless sites" list. Either way they eventually get no submissions from me. No real problem for me because there are more LLs than I have time to submit to (I hand submit, I don't use a script to do it) and I guess the LL gets plenty of submissions and isn't crying because they don't get mine.

However three things do come to mind:
1. If your LL doesn't get enough listings for your liking, don't ban .shtml pages, I cannot be the only person doing this and if you need more sites to list, you are shooting yourself in the foot this way.
2. If you don't allow .shtml pages, make sure you say so in your rules. If you just don't send traffic to WMs who have .shtml pages a good few are not going to realise that it could be because you don't accept .shtml files, and simply assume you are a traffic thief, and some of these will tell people you are a cheater.
3. Personally I don't really consider webmasters who are afraid of CGI as professionals. This does not change the way I work with them (unless they are asking me to invest in their site, or are looking for a job), but it does change my personal opinion of them.

[Bill]

Is there some reason you don't use htaccess to allow ssi to run on html pages, ecchi?

How does the perl program you use to count traffic work? That sounds interesting - it is a pain to rely on stats for that.

Does it capture and store full referrers urls?

[ecchi]

Originally Posted by Bill

Is there some reason you don't use htaccess to allow ssi to run on html pages, ecchi?

Because if a Link List webmaster does not allow ssi and I use htaccess or similar to hide the fact, I am a cheater. I don't have many virtues, but one of the few I didn't ditch is honesty (except when in my role of a journalist).

Originally Posted by Bill

How does the perl program you use to count traffic work?

Every time a site of mine gets a hit it collects all the important data (IP referrer, site etc.) so that I can look at it in a variety of ways, e.g. how many (number or percentage) of uniques from each link list to all sites or to each site individually, how many hits to a particular site, how many hits to sites of a particular niche, etc. It is far from finished, but the beauty is that I wrote it myself so if I want to find out some info I did not think of when I wrote it (eg calculating which link lists are best in a particular niche rather than overall) I can add a subroutine to do that.

Originally Posted by Bill

Does it capture and store full referrers urls?

Yes but I rarely use this data (I need to know who sent me the traffic, not which page of their site it came from).


I have said before, and I will say again. Having spent several years designing sites only knowing HTML, and several years knowing both HTML and Perl (and a smattering of PHP), I would defiantly say all webmasters should learn at least one CGI usable language. A web site designer who does not know a CGI language is like Stevie Wonder driving a car: Technically it should be possible, but he won't be as good as a sighted man, and eventually there will be a God awful crash.