Would these sites be accepted?

[gaydemon]

Ah ok,

I presume then that if you have 1 text link on the top of the page, then some "stuff" then a banner at the bottom the two links counts as 2 even if they are linked to the same site.

Interesting, in gay terms the sites I've created are seen as very bare not enough links and banners..

You got any an example of a perfect / very good straight free site?

Originally Posted by Fonz

1 if the text is right below the banner

[Licker4U]

Fairly good straight free site: Here Got a sale yesterday

[Bill]

The gay linklists you mention are like a blast from the past - 1999 rules - it's been wondered many times why they still have the rules they do.

I've subbed sites to you and the other 'big names' in the gay linklist world - and oddly enough, gotten better ratios subbing smaller sites to the straight linklists. ( But maybe I built too clean. )

That could be just a coincidence - but I don't like building sites with 48-50-60 pics to get ratios that are the same or less as sites with 24 pics.

Here's a 'straight linklist' gay site that just made a sale today. Not my best niche, so I'm willing to share it. Not the greatest site...

http://www.gay-interracial-xxx.com/redhead-jarhead/

Yes, those sites you showed would be considered too clean for good sales by the standards of the 50pic gay linklists. Kind of similar to sites I subbed there.

[gaydemon]

maybe you should try gaydemon again? I wouldnt say gaydemon is a blast from the past, have you seen my site recently? Its format, design, coding and how it works is as up to date as you can get. Certainly not a blast from the past, very much still alive and kicking.

Traffic to free sites from gaydemon is also very good.

But the main reason why I'm creating my own free sites no is because the submissions I get are such low quality. They might follow the "modern day" rules but they look terrible. Sure they have only 3 outgoing links per page but they are a mess, ugly and inspire nothing.

So this is why I've started my own network of sites.

Originally Posted by Bill

The gay linklists you mention are like a blast from the past - 1999 rules - it's been wondered many times why they still have the rules they do.

I've subbed sites to you and the other 'big names' in the gay linklist world - and oddly enough, gotten better ratios subbing smaller sites to the straight linklists. ( But maybe I built too clean. )

That could be just a coincidence - but I don't like building sites with 48-50-60 pics to get ratios that are the same or less as sites with 24 pics.

Here's a 'straight linklist' gay site that just made a sale today. Not my best niche, so I'm willing to share it. Not the greatest site...

http://www.gay-interracial-xxx.com/redhead-jarhead/

Yes, those sites you showed would be considered too clean for good sales by the standards of the 50pic gay linklists. Kind of similar to sites I subbed there.

[gaydemon]

Thanks for all the informaiton and comments.

I've tried to learn from what you all have mentioned and redesigned all 15 templates.

I would really appriciate it if you could take time and have a look and let me know if these sites stands a better chance at getting listed than my previous ones.

please keep in mind that the content is something I cannot do much about, and I fail to see why you would want to buy content rather than using sponsor provided content.. Isn't the point of a free site to give surfers a taste of what they can get?

Anyway, so here are a few examples:

http://www.pornisation.com/sites/you...s_jerking_off/

http://www.pornisation.com/sites/young_hung_and_bold/

http://www.pornisation.com/sites/twinks_screw_tbd/

(full list of all sites and templats can be found here: http://sites.pornisation.com/)

Please ignore the large recip table on the warning page, I'm just testing out what link lists to use and the amount of traffic they have.

Thanks!

[Bill]

Originally Posted by gaydemon

Anyway, so here are a few examples:

Well, I think you'll get some reviewers getting cranky because the templates all look very much alike. Write a selection of new stylesheets and rotate them and you will avoid this. Mostly - straght linklist builders have learned that it's best to create more 'different looking' sites, to keep the reviewers happy.

And some reviewers will say these are blind links - http://www.pornisation.com/sites/twi..._tbd/main.html

If you had the link text say "Click Here to watch the Boy Fun Collection Now!" - that wouldn't be blind.

[gaydemon]

Thanks for the tips, I've got someone reviewing the link texts.

The thing is, I'm getting very confused. I hear one thing (and read on the rules) and see another.

I for exampled looked through several sites listed on Link-o-rama, and they are messy, have more then 5 reciprocal links on the warning page (against the rules), the content is rubbish (same over used content over and over again). They have misleading links, one advertises Pridemovies with banners, but have text link below it is for another site (randyblue), the images are definitly nowhere near 1200px in total..

So I'm not sure what to believe, or to do. Some rules also seems to be contradicting themselves..

Should I just try and submit sites or?

Originally Posted by Bill

Well, I think you'll get some reviewers getting cranky because the templates all look very much alike. Write a selection of new stylesheets and rotate them and you will avoid this. Mostly - straght linklist builders have learned that it's best to create more 'different looking' sites, to keep the reviewers happy.

And some reviewers will say these are blind links - http://www.pornisation.com/sites/twi..._tbd/main.html

If you had the link text say "Click Here to watch the Boy Fun Collection Now!" - that wouldn't be blind.

[turf]

I know that wmv/mpg/avi is the current movie format of choise but i was wondering if a movie free sites that followed all the rules but presented the movie in FLASH would be accpted or rejected by the major link lists..

[Sven800]

Originally Posted by Licker4U

Fairly good straight free site: Here Got a sale yesterday

Personally I hate that type of layout since there are tons of thumb nails and I always end up clicking them expecting to see the larger picture. I guess I find that way of laying out a freesite a bit misleading.

[Licker4U]

Originally Posted by Sven800

Personally I hate that type of layout since there are tons of thumb nails and I always end up clicking them expecting to see the larger picture. I guess I find that way of laying out a freesite a bit misleading.

If a surfer is in the mood to click a thumb, and it's not clickable, maybe he/she will click a text link to get to the "good stuff". I consider it "eye candy". To each his own, it worked for me