|
Thanks! That helps me, I can do 600x600 pics for my one site that has square pics. :D I just did a site today at 650x650, and I think 1 pic ended up over 100k due to the quality. I'm not about to compress the shit out of them, lol.
And YIPPEE on the 1024! |bananna| |bananna| You can only fit so much stuff in 750, so that gives you more room for different layouts. I'm going to change the rules on my link lists to allow up to 1024 wide. I use 1280x1024 resolution on my 2 monitors and 800 wide max sites look really small, lol. Glad I like making 12 pic galleries for my free sites, that won't bother me at all. |
Quote:
I keep asking myself, I wonder if it was Joe Smith posting this, who owns a link list that gets 30 visitors a day, how many thumbs up do you think Joe would get if he said we should give the surfers more and higher quality free porn? I think it makes a HUGE difference that its greenguy saying it. And yes, it scares the hell out of me to post in this thread. I would hate like hell to get on Greenguys bad side (or anyone really). But I just think this is such a bad idea. Hell, I dont even do picture galleries lol. |
WarBot - you're not on my bad side :)
But my advice to you is to revive the old Linklist2 concept & see if you can get that ball rolling like TGP2 is :D Seriously - this is NOT that big of a change & if you don't like it or any of the other rules, then don't submit. |
Quote:
Cheers WB |
Quote:
|
I was a cunt hair nervous when the original post made it sound like the pics had to be 1200px on the long side (phew), but otherwise - I'm not seeing a problem here. You shouldn't be pushing the lower size pics anyway. He or she with the better samples is going to sell more porn. Keep shoving those 500px wide pixelated pieces of shit in front of your surfers and wonder why they're not buying. Good samples will sell the site better than constantly repeating "I know my samples suck, but if you join you'll get nicer shots"
Have you people ever bought a used car? Two cars cost $3k. You take both for a test spin. All else equal, one looks like shit, one still has good paint and upholstery. The salesman tries the hard sell on the shitty one. "It'll look better after you buy it than it does now!" Yeah, sure it will. |thumb At least the LOR has made it EASIER for you less than genius free site builders who couldn't squeeze your templates down below 750 to avoid horizontal scroll for the last 5 years. :D |
Quote:
|
I dont want to argue but just for the record, I dont submit sites with tiny crappy conteont and I dont have any problems with sideways scrolling either. I build good sites with good content.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
This discussion just goes to show that there are different theories on what sells porn. I think surfers buy because you've got them hooked on a good thing, you think they buy because free porn sucks. :D |
Quote:
|
I think Im getting a bad rap here and becoming the poster child for bad quality. Since you declined my partner app to whoring wives and Filthy Earls I guess you think I dont use good quality content (or my sites suck or something like that). But Ive never submitted a site with pics less than 640 on the long side and I crop and optimize my images and thumbs by hand. And the clips on my video sites are grabbed by hand to get (in my opinion) the most erotic scenes without giving away too much, not just randomly ripped and grabbed. I dont think crappy content sells. I was just saying that if all the free porn online sucked and surfers could only get the good stuff in the members area then alot more surfers would be buying memberships.
My point with the LOR new rules is that I think that giving away too much makes them less likely to buy. Which Ive already said twice and I really dont want to get flamed for beating a dead horse. GG obviously knows what he's doing and Im sure you do too. I will have to bow to experience on this one. It wouldnt be the first time (or the last) that I was wrong about something I felt strongly about. I just dont want to get labeled as the guy that thinks crappy content sells or the guy that uses crappy content. I really dont (at least I dont think I do lol). Cheers WB |
Quote:
|
if you go to a grocery store and get a free sample and it tastes like shit are you going to buy some of it? hell no but if it tastes great you MIGHT buy some
if you see some free porn samples that don't get your crotch stiff or your panties wet are you gonna buy anything? probably not but if you see something that you would like to see more of you are gonna check it out more alot of the "freeloaders" are just looking for the best quality, not neccesarily eating up all the bad content out there surfers are on your sites to check out your samples, bad samples leads to quick click backs, if they think the sites being advertised are going to contain the same type of content as your samples they are not going to buy anything from you |
I'm more than happy about dropping the 800 screen width rule!
I don't think the pic size will affect the way I do things all that much either. Means my bandwidth will go up a bit... but... eh. Warbot, I agree that giving away free stuff makes sales harder, but think about it this way: if sites that list links to 4 page ads have to compete with sites that list TONS of free galleries, can you see where there's a need to adapt? Personally, I'd hate to see my warning page sales dissappear because all the surfers keep graduating to TGP's. :D Whatever's necessary to keep the LL game going forward is good by me. |thumb I think Greenie made a careful balance here. And I, for one, take no shame in being a copycat! :D |
I'm going to venture into the fray here |loony|
I do prefer bigger thumbs, simply because it pisses me off to no end to surf and see tiny little pics. I think it's a waste of a surfer's time to have to click thru to each pic to see which ones they like. I see the bigger thumbs as a preview to the bigger pic, so what's the point if they can't even make it out? One pic can make a sale if it hits the right nerve ;) I also have stated that I think 12 thumbs makes it easier for a builder to vary their gallery templates. You can arrange 12 differently more easily than 10 imo (and from what I see as a reviewer myself). As for the full size, well ever since Cleo upped her pic size rules I've been making them bigger too (not quite 1200 combined, but close) and to be honest, I really haven't noticed a difference in click thrus or conversions. If they're going to buy, they're going to buy because they want to & your site is the best they see advertising what they wanted anyway. You catch more flies with honey...and all that :) but that's just my opinion. I don't think GG is going to see many people taking him out of their submit list, and if they do, well more for me :D |
Quote:
and you are right, if all the free porn sucked, which most of it used to, then it would be better, but your competition is already using the high quality tactics to get more sales and it is good to hear that you do that with your content, lots of people are still just slapping up 10 pics real quick with whatever content they have laying around |
Quote:
Useless is also correct about surfers going to tgps. All my images for them are cut at 700+ with 15 pics a page and a hell of alot more traffic than LL's have ever given. And yet with all these increases I pay less than half of what I use to for bandwidth just a couple of years ago. It really is a wash. I do not do videos because I think the surfer should pay for that. But in time I will probably have to change my thought about this as well. No gripes on you warbot, I understand your posts are just debate and debate only not complaints. Just like mine, not complaining, just debating with those that have been in the business longer so I can understand better. |
I don't like it because I think it sends a subliminal signal to the surfers that we are more desperate for their eyeballs, and that our content, all content, is therefore worth less.
I've never had any problem with the 800 standard, and I don't care about it one way or the other. But upping picture size and number devalues all of our work, without in any significant way adding to anybodies business, neither linklists nor builders. It will just lead to another size 'arms race' as everybody tries to position themselves to their best advantage - in the end we are back exactly where we started, but with a devalued product. But what can you do? Not much. Devaluation of our business is presumably inevitable. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I don't recall your application and I don't store them for future reference, so I can't tell you why it was rejected. Many times, the samples submitted are just a small part the process for me. I check whois, scan your domain(s), and check this board to see what sort of intelligence I can gather on you. It may have been due to the fact that you are new to the free site game. I like to keep my daily link acceptance rate as close to 100% as possible, so I tend to accept only seasoned submitters or people that I've interacted well with on this board and have therefore gained confidence in. I prefer to be selective so I can open up the review admin in the morning, peek at the sites quickly, and click "accept" all down the line. It's a mix of quality assurance and utter laziness really. Being rejected once doesn't mean that you can't reapply later. |
Quote:
I am curious though, Bill if you are in here again, to hear more of your thoughts on the subject :) |
Quote:
Some of the arguments here against changes like these are not unlike the old mindset of blind links and circle jerks. Throw up some crappy pics and more or less force the surfer to the paysite at all costs. By no means saying you would do that WB, but trying to show you a different perspective on why changes like this are likely good for sales |thumb I'd like to think we're working with a somewhat more savvy surfer in todays adult market. Todays surfer is less likely to purchase based on seeing shitty samples and being herded to a paysite for more. But, give him a taste of something of quality...something that really pushes the buttons...something that hits home...and you might just have a sale |thumb The same can be said of paysites...the old cookie cutter paysites dont' sell like they used to. This business is changing and maturing. I really think it's time to come out of the dark corners and into the light. Using quality samples to promote quality adult products makes sense imo. Having given it a lot of thought since Greenie went live with these changes, I'll likely be implementing some changes at FPP. That is, if I ever get these new categories added!!! |banghead| |
Oh, btw - I don't like his wider site allowance. I honestly keep my settings at 800x600 and horizontal scroll annoys me to no end. And now I'm going to be seeing more of it! Damn that |greenguy|!
Who'da thunk that this would become the board's HOT thread? |
what are we all gonna do when Greenie starts making us build for all the people that are buying widescreen monitors and laptops which are all the rage today? I want stuff to look good on my 42" plasma monitor and my 50" HD monitor in the living room too :D
|couch| |
Quote:
Besides, Useless is a cocksucker, who cares about his opinions! |blowjob| |
Quote:
Quote:
...and while we're talking pics, 800x600 is a very popular size - auto-crop them (and any other 4:3 ratio pics bigger than that) all to 700x525 & you're all set! Quote:
|
Quote:
As though a bunch of us were just waiting for greenie to say it was okay. |thumb |
Quote:
You know there was a depraved porn movie with a girl wrapped in a giant burrito that I would love to reference right now, but it seems that age is taking a toll on my old noggan. :( |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
They came all wierd sized like that. Got em from david lace a looooong time ago (did he go out of business?). |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I'm not wild about increasing site widths yet...there are still a good number of surfers at 800 wide. Most recent data I could find was about 20%, but that was from January of this year...so it's no doubt dropped further since that time. However, that's still more surfers than I want to make side scroll. In another 6 to 12 months, that will most likely change. Bumping up pic sizes slightly though I think is a damn fine idea :) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
What's the matter WarBot, not catching any fish? ;) I like the two freesites I've seen. And those new banners of yours are pretty nifty. |thumb |
Quote:
Quote:
"(Aurora Snow) mentioned her stint as a 'human burrito' in one volume of Jim Powers' Perverted Stories." I am a very sick man...|goodnight |
Quote:
Cheers WB |
I'm happy that you're finally allowing 1024-width sites. I've been on here asking/debating that before, saying the LLs are demanding bigger pics but keeping us throttled to 800x600 displays in spite of the overwhelming majority of surfers being at 1024x768 or higher.
For those of you who are saying "it's only 2 more pics"... umm, no... it's 4 more pics. That's a 20% increase in the free porn you're giving to the surfer. Still seem like "not so much"? (Btw not many seem to marry the "it's only 2 more pics" with the words "per gallery".) It's actually funny to see the other LL owners jumping on the bandwagon. I think if Greenie said "you must fart while submitting", pretty soon most of the LLs would have that rule as well! *wink* The no pics on html rule... well I guess the reasoning for this is less pages to check, but really, taking away advertising space is purposely hurting us. Additional pics, additional size all equal up to more bandwidth to please your surfers, but we can't advertise as much. Would you reconsider that rule? |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:14 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© Greenguy Marketing Inc