Would these sites be accepted?

[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.

[Bill]

Well, there's no rule limiting recips to 5 - you must have misread. I'd say 15 to 16 links is the average on a straight linklist freesite.

The content being rubbish isn't uncommon - a side effect of people using sponsor content. This topic is a bit complex - everyone wants to use what they perceive as the best content or most recent content to promote with.

One does what one can to make the sites look appealing and 'new' even tho one knows that others may have already used the content.

As for sloppy advertising - these things happen, people either build carelessly or are tired when they build, or they are just being sloppy. Sloppy ads are allowed, it's the number of ad links and wether or not they are blind that is checked for.

The 1200 pixel rule has been reduced to a limit of 1000px for trusted submitters.

Yes, you should just try to build and submit some sites, and see what happens. It's a different submitting environment than you are used to, so seeing what gets accepted and what doesn't is the best feedback you can get.

I recommend flat html, not xhtml. And remember, no counters or scripts except the most basic javascripts - I think I saw a google analystics script on your pages.

[gaydemon]

Thanks for the tips.

I really appriciate it! It certainly is very different from what I accept on gaydemon for example.

Link-o-rama rules it says,

"Number Of Other Link Lists You Are Submitting To = 5"

Or is that the minimum?

About scripts. Why is Google Analytics script a problem? I mean how else do you know what sells, what your surfers do etc? Doesnt anyone research and use statistics to see what or how people behave? I mean how else do you know what works?

Dont understand the xhtml issue. My xhtml coding is perfect and to the highest standard (its valid xhtml). Why is a properly designed page a problem?

Anyway, I will try and see what happens as it is now. If it doesn work, then thats unfortunate. It would have been nice to get listed and I think listing my free sites actually benefit the links lists with better quality sites and content, which is party why I do it (to increase the quality of sites listed on gaydemon and all my other gay link lists).

As I said, I really appriciate the time you are taking with giving the info!

[Bill]

Sorry, I'm wrong about the xhtml - I'm low and sleep and stressed out about a wedding I have to go to this weekend, I had a brain spasm. xhtml is fine. As to why the recip codes aren't xhtml compliant, thats because

Bjorn, you wouldn't believe the number of times I've heard a new submitter with a different idea of what constitutes a freesite say, "But my sites are good, they would benefit the linklist".

The rules evolved because of intense pressure from cheaters, and to make it possible for the reviewers to rip thru hundreds of site reviews a day. The environment is what it is - once you learn the rules, it actually simplifies the site building and submission process.

[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..

[turf]

Originally Posted by 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..

damn, this was to be a new thread insted of a post in this topic...

what can i say, i am not a bright guy!