I used to deliberately use bad English (I stopped when I realised it was getting my sites refused), simply because a site in "bad English" gets more sales, about 20% better than one in proper English, or even one in American English.

oke i just wanna make this clear, you say a site in bad english will do better then an good english site?

If you are selling hardcore porn and some niches, yes. I believe it does not work with all niches but I found it works with; general hardcore, blowjob, anal, bondage, big tit, teen and lesbian (but not quite so well with lesbian, only a slight improvement). It made no difference to amateur or mature, and it lost sales with most gay sites. I never tried it on any other niche.

But be aware I am talking about the free sites being in bad English, sending hits to sponsors who are presumably in good English or American English.

Also note that I have just edited my last post. Originally I said "converts better" I meant you get about 20% more clicks on sponsors adverts, which convert at about the same sort of ratio (I am told conversions should be slightly better, but I could not say that for certain from my stats).

I am told that the reason is that if your site looks like it was created by an idiot the surfer is more likely to believe you are genuinely doing it for fun, so will believe you if you say "This is the best hadcore site I have ever been a menber of", because they assume that someone who is trying to make money would do a better job of proof reading the site. So I guess if you use only banner ads it may not work.

There are link lists that will list crap English. Mine isn't one of them.

Let it die :D

i am seeing a bad english site the same as a site with the wrong keywords, hell i know i tried that, try to sell an anal site to a sports guy who is looking for the words anal itching...............believe me he isnt looking for a dick in his butt! i have to disagree with you, for real i would belong to the roman thing......i am soooo bad english worded.....it wont work , it shows very unproffessional ( heay shut up the ones who think i tell bad english here, i am trying to explain something here:D) see it like this, you are looking for a great shop to buy some new clothes you check ads in the papers, you see a add, then you notice..they write bad english....hell thats not good that looks amateur.........would you go there? maybe if you are a cheap person, but me.i wont go there, what do i have to expect inside the shop if they cant wite a normal english add? i see it the same for the porn bizz, i still let people check my sites, yeah i am bad english and yeah i want my sites to look good so i have to work on that part to sell.

Yes, unfortunately it is not worth hunting them down and then creating 2 versions of every free site I create. It is quicker and easier to make 20% more sites all in good English. But I am not one of those people who creates free sites every day. If you are one of those WMs who produce enough free sites to hit the "max daily submissions" wall, then I guess it may be worth your while doing this.

heyyyy halfdeck finally awake, hit me up on icq, so i can slap you:D justtttttttttttttt joking:D

i have bin there and done that, everyday free site making and yes you make mistakes but thats totally different from bad english

Stuveltje you are missing my point. I am not saying use bad English to get misspelt keywords, I am saying that once you have got them on your site using bad English helps convince them that you are genuine, not just some marketing guy trying to con them out of a few bucks.

Also, what you say about adverts ("hell thats not good that looks amateur.........would you go there?") The ad is the sponsor's site that (hopefully) is in good English. You use the bad English on your site to convince the surfer that your site is NOT an advert (because if it were an advert it would be like you said it should be). Then they trust you because you are NOT a salesman, just an illiterate idiot who likes porn. So they accept your suggestion to "look at this grate porn site" and join your (good English) sponsor's site.

you made me choke in my food, lol i never saw it that way, its funny thinking, still i wont see it that way, i dont think the surfer is that stupid they would buy a membership because of the fact they ended on a page of some person who just explains on his site in bad english how good the paysite is which he promoot on his page, where they have to pay 5 bucks for a trial. if that was the deal then i would sell free trials easy ........which i dont........na i cant believe bad english sells better, if that was the case then i was a rich girl already when i just started the bizz 4 years ago, english is not my mother language....and hell do i suck at it

There is a huge difference between bad english "dissolute teen girl suck testicles large of hairy man greek" and easy english "man, that teen knows how to suck them hairy balls... greek dude loving the action!". You don't have to write like a pro copywriter to sell, but your point has to be able to be understood by people.

The difference between the two is the difference between Roman Maroni and talking to someone at their own level.

Bad english may only sell because people can't stand to stay on your free site any longer, and click anything to get away.

Alex

Surfers visit free sites to jerk, not to read :D But SEs read everything.

I see the peanut gallery has returned |loony|

LOL, I have to love it.
Submitters can do darned well what they want, and how they want to do it.
Whether that means circle jerks, multi submits, dialers, redirects...well you get the picture, what ever they want with THEIR sites.
If they want to use broken english or hip hop or whatever on THEIR sites then fine :)

But they have to realize that link list owners will accept what THEY want on THEIR link lists :)

It is up to the site builders and submitters to figure on their own whether they WANT to GET LISTED on various link lists, lol.

Now if for example UW were to say he will no longer accept lesbian sites to his list, then I will not submit lesbian sites to him ;)
Or if I accidently slip and do submit one to him I won't cry when he doesn't list it. And if he happened to ban me for violating HIS rules, then I would accept that...apologise to him and try to get him to recind the ban of course, but I would accept HIS decision.

What is with these submitters trying constantly to tell link list owners what they should list on ther sites???

Now remember the above example using UW was only a made up example, it does not in any way mean that UW does not accept lesbian submits...though it is rumored that he greatly prefers to receive sites in the gay midget being douched niche.

yeah... but very few surfers search for "dissolute pidors", now do they?

|huh

Alex

Yes, but given the choice surfers would jerk on free porn and never buy. You have to get them to read so that you can get them to visit your sponsor, otherwise you just end up paying for bandwidth and not making any money.

I am not disagreeing with that. I am just saying why bad English can make you money, I am NOT saying that link lists should accept sites when they use bad English. After all, link list owners want surfers to click on their sponsors rather than the sponsors on the sites they list, otherwise the link list owner is just paying for bandwidth without making any money. As you say, it is up to the link list owner to use whatever rules they like, and it is in their interest to refuse to list the the more profitable sites.

*cough* *cough* *cough*
sorry, seem to have something caught in my throat |crazy|

If you are not aware of this policy, try looking at the rules a good few link lists have .

You've made a HUGE assumption That is 100% pure USDA prime bullshit.

It is in their best interest to list quality sites, so surfers will bookmark and return tomorrow. Long term that will result in more traffic and many more clicks the the LL owner's sponsor links. The notion that LL owners deliberately refuse to list sites to thin the competition for their own links is totally preposterous.

I am assuming from your anger that you run a link list and would not stoop to these tactics, which is good, but not everyone is as good as you. I don't really want to get into an argument into "a minor point in a minor point" in one of my posts, as it is not really relevant to what I was saying, but if you have some spare time look through a few other link lists, and you will see that not everyone is as honest as you. Although it is nice to see someone who is still naive enough to believe that all webmasters are honest, and who refuses to believe that any other link list owner would stoop to tactics like this. However for your own benefit you need to be a bit less trusting of human nature, or someone will screw you over big time one day.

Do you submit free sites? I need to know who made you so damned cynical about link list owners.
What does that even mean? Some veil will be lifted and the seedy underworld of link lists will be revealed if he surfs a few link lists?
That's just plain insulting. Don't call the man naive just because you have some twisted perception of how link lists are run. Link lists WANT to link to the free sites that are submitted. We need good content to build and maintain traffic. You never see anyone posting perfectly good rule-abiding free sites while complaining that they haven't been listed. Do you think that we have good submitters snuffed out if we can't come up with an excuse for not linking back? Your whole argument is baseless, preposterous, and completely unfair.

This isn't the first time. He would no doubt would have been taking TallyWhacker's side in the latest debacle |crazy|

Wrong! You really need to quit assuming.

I'm naive? |haha I'm really more of a cynic.

Thanks for the warning, but I've been around the barn more than a few times in my 45 years on the planet. I think I can figure out for myself who I can trust and who I can't.

Ah, the thread that refused to die |dizzy|

Again, Roman Maronia has zero to do with using some slang or net speak...or speaking like a real person as opposed to an ivy league college graduate. It has everything to do with not being able to string together a 'coherent' sentence.

To some extent, I undertand and even agree with Ecchi's point about speaking to the surfer at his level...but that point has nothing to do with this thread. However, tossing around accusations about reviewers intentionally rejecting sites that make sales to keep those sales for themselves is completely out of left field |crazy|

Bw is dirt cheap these days, I want all the quality sites I can list. The more traffic...the merrier! I want my submitters to make sales from my traffic...LOTS of sales! I want them to be successful and keep sending me quality sites (there's that word again...Quality). The symbiosis that exists between link sites and free sites is pretty simple to understand...if one takes the time to do so. The days of link sites trying to hog all the traffic to themselves...and porn sites jerking the surfer around til he buys (perhaps this is what Ecchi is referring to?)...well, those days went the way of the Dodo some time ago.

Offer the surfer quality sites (oops, there's that word again)...push his buttons...convince him the site you're promoting will scratch that itch he's feeling...and the sales will come :D

i would never reject a good quaility site which got submitted.....unless its agains the rules of the linksites i review, i agree with Toby, a linksite want quaility sites to get bookmarkers and all.

Christ on a bike, someone picks up one line in one of my posts and you all pull it apart to this extent. As several people have questioned the same line of my last post, I'll simply quote my post, and then answer other peoples comments on it, I think it will look clearer than quoting their post with their quote of my post in it:

Toby - sorry I assumed wrong, but I fail to see that assuming you run a link list is an insult.

Useless Warrior - Yes I do submit free sites to LLs (but not as many as some people) I do not only submit to the big sites but to about 100 minor ones as well. And I would say that about 5%-10% use questionable tactics to get the surfers to click on their sponsors rather than those on sites listed.

Useless Warrior - It means that if you look at a reasonably large quantity of LL rules you will see plenty of rules that confirm what I say (and if you try posting, you will find a few more).

Useless Warrior - Basically I am saying he is a nice guy, and you think that is an insult ???????????

Toby - You think it is cynical to trust everyone? It is a nice policy, but yes, it will cause you problems some day.

IN GENERAL
For starters I have no idea why everyone is on my case over one line in a post that did not mean anything, and was not really the point I was making.

Secondly I am somewhat surprised that so many people think that all LL webmasters are good guys, sure most are, but not all are. Hell, go through the archives of most boards and you will find plenty of threads about a LL site that has screwed someone over somewhere.

Toby - OK we will never agree on this matter. I am sorry that I offended you by inferring that you were a nice guy (but confused as to why this offends you). I also apologise for assuming you were a LL owner (but again confused as to why this offends you).

Useless Warrior - At the risk of making the same mistake as I made with Toby, I am assuming you run a LL (If not sorry). If so, I was not aiming my comments at you or your site I am sure that if you run a LL it is done fairly. However, I disagree with your view that there are no crooks in this business, but as with Toby, I guess we will never agree on this point.

MrYum - Again I am talking about a minority of LL owners, but yes a few do at least arrange the rules so that they do not get too many sites that are good at making sales. That is not left field, that I am afraid is the way some people act, they did not all go "the way of the Dodo some time ago". What you say about offering surfers quality sites is the way to make money is true, and I think it is the way the regular members of this board run their sites, but I am afraid there are plenty of people who are neither that honest, nor intelligent enough to realise this.

Surfn - First off, no I would not be taking TallyWhacker's side (as Toby said to me "You really need to quit assuming"). Second off, what is it you have against me? This is the second time you jumped in from nowhere to have a pop at me and run up a few spurious comments that had nothing to do with anything. Although you are improving, last time one of your complaints against me was that I said it was raining in London !

I wouldn't either. Certainly not because someone is russian. Right now I have four submitters who I suspect are russian. They send me all these links but the trouble is for some reason it appears they like to use multiple submit names (from the same IP always submitted around the same time). Even though that is against my rules I went ahead and ignored it because I take an unlimited amount of submission from a webmaster per day (so there is no reason to do this - one day I might get pissed and reject them all though). Eventually however all these people have ended up on my "low priority" (Which is now backed up into late november) queue because they keep submitting sites with the same title over and over which I DO NOT allow and find annoying. It got so bad that half of their submissions were like this and it cut into my time severely. I still haven't banned them yet because I figure they are giving me a reciprical link and a very little traffic so I figure why should I. I'd rather keep them around, if possible. I'd rather list them.

Regarding the "Roman Maroni", yeah sometimes it is very bad. Often I crack up laughing reading some of the descriptions! :) If it is a minor mistake with a keyword or a weird way of putting something here and there I usually let it go reasoning that perhaps someone will search for this perhaps. If it is outright ridiculous, I rewrite the description. But it has not gotten bad enough YET where I had to put anyone on a low priority queue because of that alone.

Some things the russians should realize:

1. It takes time to correct descriptions (even for a small LL).

2. Not a lot of us have a lot of free time to do this and it may hurt other submitters who won't get listed as soon as they might have otherwise.

3. If you can't or won't do this, then you are willingly putting this work on us.

4. How would you like it if we submitted stuff to a native language LL that you had which was not legible and you had to spend 20 minutes a day fixing it?

Simply put, perhaps some of the foreign webmasters who are not very well versed with English should either learn it or find a friend or someone whom they can pay to review their text for them and fix it before they submit. I don't think that is too much for any LL owner to ask at all and is quite reasonable.

Christ doesn't ride a bike. His robe gets caught in the chain. :D
Sorry, I've just never heard anyone use "naive" as a compliment, especially since it is defined as "lacking worldly experience and understanding" and "characterized by a lack of sophistication". I consider myself corrected. :D
Why does your apology sound like another insult to me?|huh Could fall back on that naive=nice guy thing. Maybe I'm just hyper-sensitive now.

Yes, two, maybe three.(don't tell anyone)

Could you please show me where I said that?

Who? We're not above naming names. Point them out.

ecchi, I know you are smart guy and a good guy, and I'm really not trying to start anything here. I realize that every aspect of this business, like any other, has cheaters - right from the newbie submitter up to sponsors. But your initial statements about link lists seemed to imply that it's some secret general policy to screw the submitter. We all know that that is simply not true.

I wasn't insulted, amused perhaps, by your assumption about the motivation for my post.

But I don't trust everyone and am fully aware that there are cheats and scoundrels out there. I'm just fairly certain that most LL owners who choose not to list sites with improper English aren't among them.

ecchi, You've made some rather broad assumptions and statements about LL owners as a group. I just think you're wrong about the majority of them, and that you've insulted the integrity of some very good people.

I don't like people that stir shit just to make other people think they know some dark untold secrets.

I think the most important thing to remember about the LL owners who are members of the community here is that we tend to police ourselves. If you've got proof that some Link List or another is intentionally fucking over submitters then post it here. Call them out for a public thrashing like only other LL owners can dish out. Sure there are scumsucking LL owners out there, and they're bad for business. If you can't name at least 3 link lists that have caused you to have the opinion you posted earlier, you might as well be bitching about the black helicopters that fly over your house to spy on you.

We LOVE our submitters. Sometimes in the unwholesome ways that will get the Republicans on our case. Any LL owner with their head anywhere except their ass knows that the ONLY way to succeed with the LL business plan is to find good submitters and list as many of their sites as possible, then send them as much traffic as you possibly can. Believe me, the two hits from a recip link on a declined site is worth one fuck of a lot less to a link list than a listing that has value to the surfers.

I can get a rough idea from my sponsor and traffic stats what percentage of my traffic goes to my submitters as opposed to my own links, and I like to keep it at around 90% to the submitters (and there are a variety of ways I can control that).

Ecchi, the shit you're taking right now is the result of your broad generalization, and while I understand that perhaps you didn't INTEND to say that "only a few" link lists are like that, you made a broad generalization nonetheless.

TOBY
Then when I infer that some LL WMs use underhand practises why do you say "That is 100% pure USDA prime bullshit."?

When? All I inferred was that there are some that use underhand practises.

Not true, it is you who insulted their integrity by assuming that when I pointed out that "it is in their interest" that this meant they all must do it. I never said any such thing.

SURFN
I don't see that it is stirring shit to say that some webmasters are dishonest, I thought that was common knowledge. And as to knowing some "dark untold secrets", the only "secret" I told was that some LL owners use underhand methods, I doubt if there is a single webmaster or even surfer who is unaware of this !

USELESS WARRIOR
Post 103 - "Your whole argument is baseless, preposterous, and completely unfair."

I have no idea, I assume you are just trying to find fault with me to give you an excuse to continue this argument.

I have no problem with the majority of LLs myself, however the fact that you and Toby assume that when I say "it is in their interest to refuse to list the the more profitable sites" this means that all of them will automatically do this, kind of gives the impression that both of you have it in the back of your minds that all LL owners are crooks, otherwise why would you jump to this conclusion from an innocent comment like this ?

When I find a site I have reason to object to I just drop it from my list, I don't keep a blacklist except in extreme circumstances. However even if I did I am above naming names.

MAD MAX
(Same reply as on my last point to Useless Warrior.)

Yes, but they don't all have "their head anywhere except their ass", a few have it firmly embedded up there.

I don't keep grudges, I don't keep a sad little black book of people who do me wrong, I just drop them and move on. As to "bitching about the black helicopters", the sort of paranoiac who does this IS the sort of person who keeps a grudge book. If I were that sort of person I would be able to list more that three (and be prepared to list their names in an open forum).

Umm is this a typo or did you misunderstand me, because I DID intend to say that only a few link lists are like this.

I made no broad generalisation. I'm not sure exactly what you are saying here, but I think (and I apologise if I am misunderstanding this paragraph of your post) that you, like Toby and Useless Warrior, are assuming that because I say "it is in their interest to refuse to list the the more profitable sites" this means that all of them will automatically do this. As I said before, this kind of gives the impression that you have it in the back of your minds that all LL owners are crooks, otherwise why would you jump to this conclusion from an innocent comment like this ?

Ecchi, you are correct. I mis-typed, and what I meant to say was: "I understand that perhaps you INTENDED to say that "only a few" link lists are like that"

:)

Oh for the love of |buddy|

Ecchi, you're obviously an intelligent and articulate guy. Can you honestly look in the mirror and claim that the statement "it is in their interest to refuse to list the the more profitable sites" is NOT an overbroad generalization???

Making that statement with no qualifier of 'some' or 'a few' (as you're NOW claiming)...implies all link lists are run in that underhanded manner. I think you'll find that the vast majority of list owners who regularly post in these forums are in fact upstanding business people. THAT is in their best interests for long term success which is exactly why they're here. And as Max said, on the occasion when a list owner is doing naughty things, they're outted and summarily flogged in public.

Given that you've now 'adjusted' your statements to 'some' or 'a few' link lists, it's difficult to fathom why you can't simply admit that your prior statements were in fact overbroad generalizations.

The same goes for TGPs...it's kind of a simple theory really. Good submitters are the lifeblood of any TGP / LL...if you don't have good submitters, if you try to stack your site with FHG or Hosted Freesites, you'll soon find the surfer gets bored and leaves your site. Also, if you don't list quality submitters, if you don't send them traffic, if you don't make it easy for them to submit, if you have hidden rules that get their galleries tossed, etc...By all means follow that methodology and you'll soon have no quality submitters.

The LL/TGP that realize submitters are an asset and not a hinderance are the ones that end up successful.

As for ecchi's statement, he was way too general and broad in his assessment, but there are LL and TGPs that do follow certain practices that are questionable. The best way to deal with LL/TGP that have questionable practices is to delete them from your database. If a LL/TGP has a stupid rule the best way to deal with them is...delete them from your database.

See how that works? lol, basically as a submitter you should actively choose to submit to sites that respect you as a submitter. When the owner of a LL/TGP and a submitter has a healthy friendly relationship it's a win win situation for both.

Well, I've officially become annoyed by this thread.:D Took longer than usually, but it finally happened. You can't really spend much time arguing with someone who submits his free sites to 100 link lists yet doesn't know who owns link lists on THE link list/free site board. You also can't argue with someone who says that it's in the best interest of link lists to reject "the more profitable sites" whatever the fuck that means.|huh

Here's the truth. Link lists NEED to list submitted free sites. A link list that only listed HFSs would fail due to the lack of back links and reciprocal linking. Link lists want to list the best free sites they can find. I thought that was obvious, but I guess it isn't.

Are there rotten fucks who own link lists? Of course.
|pokefun| Yahook
Fortunately, there are very,very few. Certainly not enough to warrant this conversation.

Ecchi, please don't take my tone as hostility. This is just how I speak. BTW, I liked your old avatar better. ;)

Read the line through again. My error is actually that it does not infer that anyone does this. If I said "it is in a driver's interest to drive safely" would you assume that this meant that all driver's drive safely? No you would not, it is just that you subconsciously think badly of LL owners yourself, so see bad things about them whatever you read.

I have not 'adjusted' my statements, I 'explained' them for people who misinterpreted them. (Should I say "for the few people who misinterpreted them" before someone points out that not all members of this board did so.)

Because if I did I would be lying, and my mother brought me up better than that.

A long way back I pointed out that I do this. However Useless Warrior and Mad Max have already posted to say I should not do this, I should keep a list of everyone who wrongs me and get revenge by posting their names on the boards.

If you don't even know what it means, then why the fuck are you arguing about it ?

Exactly what is the point of going through the profiles and learning everyone else's business? At best that is a waste of time, at worst an invasion of privacy. I assume everyone here works in the online porn industry in some way and that is all I need to know. I have no need learn everything about their business life just to post on the board. And to suggest that this is necessary to post here is more than a little ridiculous.

Jesus Christ change the record will you. You keep saying this and I keep pointing out that this is not the issue here. Even those who strongly disagree with my posts admit that some LL owners do not play fair.

This is an open board, if I post something other members are free to post whatever they like about my post. If I was likely to take offence at the tone of the posts, then I should avoid posting.

Okay, I don't have time to continue this debate over symantics. I and apparently several other people think your statements were overbroad generalizations...and I certainly do not think subconsciously or otherwise that most link list owners do 'bad things'. The vast majority of my best friends in this business are in fact link list owners.

All that said, we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one...cuz I'm done banging my head against this wall |banghead|