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

Most people that build freesites also build galleries...they use two galleries they submit to tgps to build a freesite. To get listed on most tgps you should go with around 15 pics per gallery (some allow less, but almost none allow under 12 pics unless you manage to find an old ghost town TGP2 site that someone forgot to shutdown).

Many people are already building freesites with more content then GG is requiring now. So, I'm not actually sure why this 20% thing is such a big thing for you.

in case my question went unnoticed -

what point stand behind +4 pictures rule?

I see this: attract bookmarkers from other link-lists offering them more free porn than other lists who haven't yet got this rule?
but that's how tgp started it's destruction awhile ago, why follow this? everybody is making money now, why change anything? don't get the point.

(talking as free site submitter)

somebody mentioned in the thread before, better quality content = more sales for free site submitter. free site strategy has nothing to do with content at all and fact you are making most of your sales from index / main pages just proves it... content is to fill up link-list you're submitting to, that's why you want to use less amount of pictures allowed.

personally, going to stop submitting to every link-list from my database who copy this rule. for free sites submitters, it's not about traffic you receive from this or that link-list after all > it's about link-backs to get your free site indexed in SearchEngines in the end of the day. some forget this or haven't realised.

Yeah I've been doing this for years. Using 15 pics also allows me to be more creative with ad layout.

For what it's worth I've updated my LL rules as well. :)

Leave it to some porn slingin |potleaf|webmasters to overcomplicate and over think, a few uncomplicated simple rules. "Y'all er killin me"

PS. I know, I'm a "Fargin Icehole" :D

That statement is so off base, it's funny. 1st off, you're assuming that surfers know what the rules are from link list to link list (I'm not even going to start up the old debate that surfers know if they are on a TGP or a LL, because they don't) Surfers don't bookmark a LL because they see 24 pics & not bookmark a LL because they see 20 - they bookmark sites that the like.

The 2nd part is that you're even implying that I want to attract (dare I say, steal) bookmarkers from other LL's. That's really strange, since my main page has 40 or so links to other lists & my category pages have countless links to others as well. I'm not in a competition with any other link lists - I send traffic to Cleo, she send traffic to me. I send traffic to Linkster, he sends traffic to me. We all pretty much share our traffic with each other.

If that's the case, then what do you care if you have 20, 24, 30, 60, 1000 pics on your gallery pages.

I've never begged for submissions & I rarely kiss the submitters ass - especially when they think their site is my content. I send out a lot traffic on a daily basis & I have to have some rule in place as far as what I list. Don't like the rules, don't submit.

That really is a Catch 22 - most of the big traffic sending Link Lists are the ones that have the most SE "power" (for lack of a better word) So by not submitting to the big link lists, your chances of getting decent (if any) SE listings is very slim.