Are you saying that we are stupid or deciptive? Get over it. It's done.
You won't see my rules change. I may agree with the Green One's changes and the reasoning behind them, but that doesn't mean that I think they're so grand that I wish to institute them myself. In fact, I'm going to open my admin right now and reject a couple of sites in protest of GG's rules. Then I'm going to reject 10 or so more due to you implying that we are all sheep. Baaaah, right back at ya.

|huh Most link lists haven't allowed full sized pics on their own HTML pages in quite awhile. And yes, it is meant to intentionally hurt the submitter. List owners sit around conspiring against free site builders on a fucking daily basis.

Must be nice and quiet under that rock.

You make it seem like you're the only one who's posed this issue before. |sad|

Actually, a few other LL owners have been more than ready to implement changes similar to what Greenie outlined. In fact, a few already have. Greenie isn't the first. He's just, argueably, the most well known.

Missed this point...

I imagine not accepting sites because there just isn't enough time in the day to check them is even more harmful to submitters. |sad|

And FYI, some sites DO accept pic pages. If you're that concerned about it, group your recips by who does and build 'em. :)

I guess the point that really hit home with me is when someone said (Im too lazy to look and see who) that link lists have to compete with tgp's. Its 1 click to get to the free porn compared to... more than 1 (Now Im too lazy to count). The only way to compete is with higher quality. Link lists get alot of search engine traffic, and I think alot of it is eventually lost to tgp's. This will help to prevent that. So I think its going to be better for everyone. Link lists will keep more bookmarkers, free site builders will have the benefit of the extra traffic to their sites.

I finally get it.

My personal opinion aside looks like we have a new standard and what is done is done.

My question is ... does this count for sponsor hosted freesites aswell? We have a tidy little collection of them in for Titanbucks and just want to know if we will need to go through and update them all?

Cheers.

|roses| I elaborated on just that, but I wasn't the only one who pointed it out. I think for a lot of people here it was a generally understood thing. ;)

I think the other board members sensed you would. Tis why there is no harm in open and honest dialogue. :)

Greenie says old listings will be grandfathered in. So I guess for LOR newly made sites will just need to be made accordingly. |thumb

However, freehosted sites get pulled by webmasters at various odd times, so I guess it all amounts to whether it's easier to continue to make new ones, or to adjust the old. |huh

I think you're right in assuming a new standard will emerge (don't forget to fart whenever you submit sites|thumb ) but I wouldn't be surprised if there's a bit of tweaking before there's a stone tablet all LL owners bow down to. :D

You weren't supposed to make this public!!! DAMN IT! |catfight|

Oh yeah and those 4 pics extra are really hurting our bizz, I'm going to introduce the 1 page with 1 link and no pics freesite!! Boy am I going to get rich |bananna|

Well, a 10% increase to 22 total & 11 per page would just be silly - who makes galleries with 11 pics?

It honestly never even crossed my mind that others would follow suit until Fonz joked about it after I posted. Let's all remember that if you build sites that fit at 800 & follow the rest of the rules, you'll still get listed at most places. Plus, with a little testing, you can build sites that have tables set to 100% that still fit at 800 (but please, test them out & make sure they look decent before you submit them)

I got rid of this rule because I can honestly not remember the last time I had a site submitted that had pics on html pages. It seemed like it was a useless rule.

Any site that's listed with a date prior to August 21 2006 will not have the new rules applied to it EVER! MML will still be checking all the sites by hand from time to time, but only sites listed after Monday will be re-reviewed with the new rules.

...and everyone knows that LL's bend the rules for HFS's from time to time |couch|

Thanks WarBot at least I know what size to use now! Have to be honest with you though addition is a complex formula for me |crazy| And believe it or not I did manage to graduate from High School hell even college!

I just wonder when I go bigger in my pic size if I'm going to get rejected at other LL's? There is no way in hell I would not submit to Greenie's LL so I'll change things. And no I'm not kissing ass, Linkorama is always in the top traffic sender in my stats. Not going to give that up!

Thanks for the answer :)

I think we will redo them anyhow so they are in line with the new rule sets.

Can I submit 2 sites a day :D

Sue, I don't think you'll get rejected for bigger pic sizes...we'll just have to keep an eye on the weight. I'm used to optimizing to about 60kb or so, I'm going to up it to just under 80. That should still be ok for most LLs. (I hope :))

I have only seen a few LLs that have a weight rule, I'd like to see what they think too.

and i'm thinking how can i compress it to fit into that tiny mobile screen on ESPN fone, or IPOD or PSP and still be able to see tits???

I'd like to go on record by saying that I do not encourage or expect people to go thru their old sites & adjust them to fit the new rules.

Seems there's threads on 3 other boards about this (Netpond, Medium Pimpin & a 3rd that's in a language that 99.44% of my surfers don't speak) Please do not go by anything that is posted as fact or hearsay in those threads, as I really don't want to go from board to board explaining things, especially the existence of unofficial rules |crazy|

Just read the other threads, it seems like the sky is falling again :D
|skyfall|

Well, it is Fonz! Bigger pics to go with bigger sites that fit on bigger monitors!?!?!?!?!! WTF is wrong with me!?!?!?!?!?!

I really wish I had the next 2 things ready to be released, because now it's going to look like I'm kissing every submitters ass when I do announce them.

Or maybe I won't announce them at all - just put them into place & see who notices - because |buddy| forbid people get upset with things that I think will benefit surfers & webmasters to my site |couch|

Who do you think sell the most?

A sales guy that really know his product and give away free samples to give the customer a feel for the product but HE sells the product?

Or a guy that doesn't know his product, but give away free samples and hope that the product will sell itself?


EDIT: Clarified. Comparing apples to apples

With the way these new rules have been spreading on boards I thought I'd have to give a urine sample with each submit (I'd still win the Tour de France though).

Seems to me like these are straight forward rules that a lot of webmasters have already been using for awhile now and it really isn't that dramatic of a change. So, why is everyone getting so excited over it? lol.

Too bad though, I think I've missed the opportunity to join in the mass hysteria and now I feel leftout.

I noticed that unofficial rules post :)
I talked to you the day you decided on the new rules and nothing was being done before you posted them.

But, what can you expect? By now, everyone should know that you do what you do to make the surfers come back over and over. And, if it doesn't work out for you, you change the rules back.

But, according to most posts, you are going to be the downfall of free sites :)

I have been following the new rules for a long time :D

I haven't seen the threads on the other boards and frankly don't have time or desire to do so. From the sound of the tone they're taking...geez, that's just nuts |crazy|

I may not be quite ready to agree with Greenie on the site width issue, but do have some ideas for a compromise to remain in step for submitters. That said, these changes really aren't that big a deal. "The downfall of free sites"...puhleeeze! |banghead|

Unofficially, I am glad I do have to read 8.02+ posts per day filled with bad information from someone overdosed on Mountain Dew.

And my point is made. CrazySy is part of a very small group I think of as elite free site builders; people who construct highly refined sites, both in appearance and salesmanship. That group has been raising the level of free site quality all along and they make "normal" free sites look slapped together. The really good free site builders won't feel encumbered by these new rules.

Again, my defense of the new rules doesn't mean that I'm adding them to my lists, but you won't ever see me declining anyone for more/bigger pics and I gave up on ridding the world of horizontal scroll months ago. Build decent sites and you'll have my love and admiration.

(Grumble grumble at UW)

The changes get a thumbs up from me.
:)
The only problem I can see is keeping those pic weights to a reasonable size. Apart from that issue, which I'm pretty sure won't even be an issue, this just seems a logical next step.
I've been feeling quite good about currently using 24 pics per freesite, and now everyone else will be doing it! Dammit!
:D

Just got to go with whatever the current rules are and adapt as necessary.

interesting,

I would even adjust my freesites pictures to 1200 rule if submitting to link-o-rama as with todays resolution these pictures will look just about the same as 550-345 looked yesterday, but I don't understand why more total pics?

That makes sense. Although, not really a reason to disallow it just because no one's using it ;)

Virgo - I know some sites do accept pics on HTML, and it was nice that GG was always one of the bigger "holdouts" on allowing that. Sad to see it go. Never said I was the only one who brought up the screen size, just that I'd asked about it before (and had always gotten poo-poo'd for it, btw).

UW - I'm not implying that people are either stupid or deceptive. I'm simply pointing out that while 4 more pics doesn't *sound* like much, it's actually a 20% increase. When you think about it that way, it gives you a more concrete idea of what this change means. For one site? No biggee. Think about it in broader terms- folks who submit freesites daily will be increasing their total free porn output 20% across the board. That's a significant increase, and it's something to consider.
The rock comment was cute. Childish, but cute. There is life outside of GG&J, in case you hadn't checked lately.

Carrie - stop with the 20% angle - the only other increase would have been 10% & like I said, 11 pics per gallery is just silly. No one builds galleries with 11 pics (and if you do, please show me the template & I pray the 11th one is labeled "BONUS PIC!")

Jay's rules have been "You site must have at least 40 pics" for a long time - HOLY SHIT! That's a 100% increase over my old rules & 67% more than now (I think - my math sucks)

PK? "A combination of thirty (30) free pics..." AAAAHHHHH! That's 25% more than mine!!!!!

I was reading thru a lot of other Link List's rules yesterday & today, and while I was scratching my head as to why so many have copied mine (some word for word) I also realized that some of them don't say they have a minimum pic requirement (so I guess 2 is ok - or 4, which would be a 100% increase from 2) Some say they will reject the sites if the pics are too small, but they don't tell you what they consider "too small".

At lease I'm now telling everyone what's what :)

Also, just a general thought...no one else has mentioned anything that's NOT on the rules page....|couch|

Ya think?

|waves|

I can tell Greenie's not the one reviewing my freesites. |loony|

Personally, I like odd numbers. They FORCE me to make unique layouts. |thumb

FYI:

3+3+5 = 11
5+4+2 = 11
2+3+6 = 11
2+9 = 11
8+3 = 11

All of which have worked for me. :D

9 pics in a row? 80 for the width of the thumbs? :D

Tall thumbs. |thumb

don't you mean burritos to burritos?

|couch|

OK, gotta have to throw in my newbie 2c into this new rule thingy, although probably noone gives a f**k :D

The picture size - well, I don't care much, my pix already applied with that b4 it came up. And I think that 1200 combined rule is better than saying 800 on the long side. I haven't seen a lot of 750x450 pix, but they are out there and that way they are accepted aswell.

I'm glad that you dropped that 800x600 rule, I mean my sites don't have any horizontal scrolling at 800x600, but I really think that's a kinda useless rule. I mean, who (besides Useless Warrior *lol*) really keeps his resolution at 800x600? Like 95% of my visitors have a 1024x768 resolution or higher - for myself I'm running at 1280x1024 and I don't have any monster machine, just a decent computer with a 19" screen, which is nothing special imo.

Oh, and that extra 2 pix per gallery. Maybe it gets harder to find the content for your galleries now, as some sponsors don't give out much free content, but on the other hand it now makes more sense to use 2 different girls/scenes for one freesite, which I find more interesting anywayz. 10 pix per scene was not that great before.

Oh, and what about the file size? I mean I submitted to 9 different LL's so far, many of them I'd consider as "big players" - I haven't found a "max 100kb per pic" rule at any of them. I mean, it's my bandwidth, isn't it? :D Sure, a 500kb pic loading for 2 minutes is crap, but come on, almost everyone has a fast connection nowadays, so 200kb pics are no prob for most surfers.

UW, thanks for compliment :)

What I don't get is as to why some people think they will be giving more free porn away? Does the rule say 4 extra hardcore images? NO, it does not. Simply add 4 more teaser images of the model |loony| I have built sites with 30 images yet I gave away less than some sites with 20. It's not the quantity of the content, it's how you choose it.

I think majority of submitters don't like that just because of the fact some of their sponsors don't offer more than 20 per set.

Just my 2 cents

Now I better get my sorry ass back to work :D

WAIT! Dont get your sorry ass back to work until you visit this thread
http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/...941#post293941
and give me some pointers please.

GG- A clarification please.
You say 24 pic minimum (12 per gallery) BUT what if I decided I wanted to create a freesite with 30 pics in 3 galleries? I'd be complying with the 24 pic minimum rule and the third page would give me another chance to put two more ads in front of the surfer.

When I first started making free sites I often made 3 gallery free sites because I thought it would be a good way to do a bit more advertising. I stopped when the rules started getting restrictive but this has reminded me of it.

grandmascrotum - it's still 12 per gallery page - if that part of the rule is not in there, I'd get sites with 4 pages & 6 pics on each (found that out a long time ago)

Darn... 12+12+12 = 36 = too many at some places.

But maybe that will change. |huh