Dont submit sites with cheater LLs recips
 

Im noticing a growing number of submits with LLs recips from cheaters LLs. Submitters might take a look at the cheaters forum here to see the different LLs that have been listed in the past for reasons ranging from stealing recips from existing LLs to multisubmitters. Ive sent out an email to one submitter this morning and when I see more I will try to contact the submitter - but I would recommend that submitters do a little research as well.

Added - if I see three of your LLs listed in the recips - the free sites will be trashed

I agree. Recip tables with cheater LLs and other various LLs are getting all sorts of free sites declined.

XPorn

I'll second that 100%.

Agreed |thumb

Seems to have become even more of an issue recently |dizzy|

You know, I hadn't considered that there would be cheater LL's that are banned like that. I know that some LL's have specific sites listed in their rules that I've tried to be conscious of, but I'm going to go double check my recips now. Thanks for the info Linkster.|thumb

I just realized what a severe biz it was to submit free sites

Good measure agaisnst multisubmitters |thumb

Linkster, it would be good idea if somebody collects all these links and info about multisubmitters in one place (one page).

Yahook - that would be complicated as we would only be listing ones that were actually complained about here in the cheaters forum

Most of the multisubmitters and cheaters LLs never get put out publicly by some LL owners - remember some of these cheating LLs are ones that copied a specific LL's recips or something like that and there are a lot of LL owners posting on this board who dont care that they cheat.
Its a shame but I guess what goes around comes around as those same LL owners will find getting trades a tad bit harder

linkster it's easy to forget some, I should have wrote them down, a few come to mind...

I agree. That's one of the biggest mistakes some owners make. If you want good trades you need to run a tight ship...nuff said |thumb

Hi Linkster, I got your email. I'm in the process of doing a complete whole start with my freesites (new kind of templates, new text links recips, etc).

I'm sorry if I was listing you with cheaters, I didn't noticed that. I'll be doing a new database too, and I'll pick all the LLs one by one. Can you tell me how to find LLs cheaters ? What's a cheaters for you ?

Thanks, and have happy holidays !

I'd like to be pointed in the right direction too. I read the Possible Cheaters forum last night and most of what I saw was different email addresses used by mulitisubmitters. I made note to stay away from LL's associated with those domains, but if there is another thread or forum I missed, I'd be happy to read it.

I have been thinking a central blacklist database that everyone could use and integrate it to their scripts.

Would this be good idea?

I know about http://bl.usefulscripts.com/ and its good but i cant but
it in my script for automated cheater check.

Just my 2 thoughts before xmas and mary xmas to everyone :)

In answer to the question about LLs that cheat and how to find them - there is a small issue in that while most will blacklist a LL for stealing/copying somebodies LL recips (like has happened in the past for Hoes and Cleos and a few others) there are link list owners out there that dont care about that and will continue to list free sites using those stolen recips or other copyright infringements etc.

I dont pretend to be the Link List cop and making a central database would just be asking for trouble in my opinion as out of the hundreds of link lists out there that would use it - I can guarantee based on posts Ive seen here that there are link lists owners that would list anything as long as it has a recip to their site and has 4 pages |jester| - all they care about is having the recips for their misconceptions of search engine positioning LOL

I think all reviewers have in mind a small group of recips that they don't want to see on any site submitted to them. Some for business reasons. Some for personal reasons. Naming names can start an ugly shit storm, so let me be the first one to fling poo. The following are no secret. This is an exact excerpt from Filthy Earl's rule page:

- Submissions with a recips to any of the following link lists will not be accepted:
>> Cherry Picked Links - stolen recip code
>> Porn Fresh - stolen domain
>> Fetish Crawler - stolen domain
>> J Loves Porn - spamming fucktard

You don't have to memorize these to submit to me. My script will block your submission and tell you so if one of them is present.

I would add these to the list - just some quick ones I found in the cheaters forum:
fuckthensuck
linksforadult
flashinglinks
webadultlinks

Im pretty sure they were added because of being multisubmitters using fake names and emails

I have a couple dozen but I won't and don't publicize which ones |santa|

In addition to the ones already mentioned above...

Thanks for the reply, I'm deleting them from my database...

Surfn, if you could send me an email with the domains.. that would be appreciated.

manuel [at] simplyadultdesign (dot) com

Merry Xmas to everyone :)

I submit to a very small list of LL's...so I don't really worry much about submitting to a cheater link list because it's such a small tight list of well respected places.

However, if you are going to toss a freesite for having cheater recips, etc. Shouldn't you just post a list of LL you have trouble with on your rules page? I mean, if they cheat, just throw them under the bus and be done with it.

A lot of people don't read forums that often (heathens) and they just wouldn't realize a place is cheating. Basically...embrace the UW methodology of, they cheat, therefore I post their names.

But there are also linklist owners who weren't around for some of these infractions. For instance I've seen a good deal of LL rules that say no 'Cherry Picked Links' but I had no idea why. I actually thought it may be a CP thing.

I remember someone copying Cleo's recips and if I noticed that I probably would have mentioned something to the submitter.

I guess my point is, some LL owners -- like myself -- are just as clueless about which LL's are considered cheaters. I appreciate the lists You and Useless put down below and I'll try to keep a better eye out for those sites. So it may not be that we don't care, but that we are just not informed. :)

BTW: I know fuckthensuck used to be in my recip tables, I had no idea...

-Preacher

Mr Blue - basically in answer to your question about just tossing the free sites - since I work only with partner submitters - I do (and did in this case) send an email to the submitter to let them know for each and every case :)

I think that it would be tough to say - here's a list - because again a lot of LL owners dont consider copying somebodies recips a "cheating infraction" or they simply dont care as evidenced by their continual listings of sites that do have those recips - and yes these would be LL owners that do know about the occurences and even posted in the threads way back

I name the LLs I will decline a freesite for having their recips on the same page as mine on my rules page, seems I need to add a few more |thumb

Damn that's such a fucked up sentence I gotta leave it there just to confuse people. I'll start again....

I state on my rules page which recips will cause a decline, seems I need to add a few |thumb

:D yeah you run a good show and I know you would toss an email if something was up.

Yeah, I understand that it's not everyone's rule...but that's why there's rule pages for every LL. I mean I submit to FilthyEarl, if I see on his rule page that he doesn't want his LL associated with x, y, z, etc...I won't put the recips with his. When someone says, so and so, cheated on their rule page, I'll usually look it up and drop them from my submit list if it's something I deem cheating as well.

I don't know, it just seems like a new LinkList is popping up daily now. It's getting hard to keep track of the players.

70%-90% of those new LLs will fade into nothingness as their owners relize how much work it really is to run a LL. Plus, you've got to focus on getting traffic to give away for free, which is a concept some people don't find too appealing once they get right down to it :D

Theiving motherfuckers who can't be bothered to design their own recips should be taken out and buried in a pit of scarabs.

Link list owners that multisubmit (like fuckthensuck.com) are just fucking uncivilized.

Well said Max |thumb

With a minor addition...add a fire ant mound in with the scarabs :D

Running a link site is definitely not for the feint of heart or those looking for a quick buck. It's more of a long LONG term love/hate kinda thang...lol.

lol, I run TGP's and it's pretty much the same mentality. I mean there's 4000 or so TGPs out there and around 40 that actually update and send decent traffic daily.

When I started submitting freesites again I used the quality over quantity equation and it seems to work nicely that way. Still, if there's a specific LL that pisses you off because they've cheated one way or another...it just seems easier to me to post their names on your rules page.

I see several of you asking us to add the sites we won't list to our rules/submit pages. My reply is simple: Why should we do that when they come and go?

Here's the best tip for not getting rejected by any LL for having a link to someone they don't like for whatever reason, look at their friends list. Most lists have a list of friends longer than the number of recips most submitters use. Submit to those friends and use their recips and you won't get rejected for putting a link list in what they consider a bad neighborhood.

I only submit to 22 LL and they're all well known, but for argument sake, let me just take a wack at this topic.

If you have a specific list of say 15 LL's that you deem cheating...that would take up maybe 1 line or 2 on the rules page. Wouldn't it ultimately save you time, the submitter time, etc by just posting it? I mean FilthyEarl for example, I know who UW doesn't want to be linked with and I don't. I also removed them from my submit list ages ago because of it. Just from this thread we have this list:

Cherry Picked Links, Porn Fresh, Fetish Crawler, J Loves Porn, fuckthensuck, linksforadult, flashinglinks, webadultlinks

For me it just seems like a quicker method. Linkster also stated, "...there are a lot of LL owners posting on this board who dont care that they cheat." For me it just makes it too much of a guessing game to figure out which linklist owner would think one thing is cheating and one thing isn't cheating.

So, throw 'em under the bus if you think they cheat, let the submitter know. For me the rules page is the guidelines to get listed or not...leaving out information just causes extra work for all involved.

Who said this businesses is easy? Like I said I'm not going to bother listing them. Want to get listed with me use reputable lists other than mine.

I'm not trying to tell anyone how to run anything. I'm just giving my opinion based on my experience as a submitter and as a TGP owner. I've always viewed the rules page as the Holy Grail to getting listed. As a submitter if I follow the rules, I hope my chances of getting listed at TGPs/LLs are better than average. If there are implied rules that aren't specified by a LL or TGP owner...I just think it creates a needless step in the process for both owner and submitter.

I submit only few LL and I know none of the owners cheat but I second what Mr. Blue said.
And yes.. it changes a lot when LL owners inform their submiters about decline reason (as Linkseter said) but otherwise IMO it's a bit unfair.

Linkster's a class act and he does and would go that extra mile to notify someone regarding the recip thing. I completely respect the way he runs his LL, from partner submits, to the single blessed recip, he just really gets top marks in my books for the way he runs things.

I was more or less commenting on the freesites that get rejected daily for inadvertently breaking this unwritten rule and if they would ever get notified regarding it.

Since you are not a partner on any of my sites you would not know that I do email submitters informing them when something needs to be fixed.

But that's fine call me anything you like. Assumptions are a very common trait.

Surfn has sent me email in the past informing me of an error I had,
not a recip error, more of a coding error.
I would have to say that was a Classy act, as well as very much appreciated.

I would also have to say it does take time to get LLs recips paired
together with who likes who. That by looking at their friends list and time in the biz.



Ben

I'd have to agree. It's not fair to reject a site because of the submitter's inability to read the reviewer's mind. If the reviewer takes the time to inform the submitter of the reason why and let them resubmit if they choose to make the necesary change(s), then that's fine.

I personally don't know of very many lists that I can call cheaters/scumbags. So, if you see me sticking with a short list, that's because they are the only ones that I've seen reputable board members complain about. I have no reason to believe that there are more than the ones that have been named in this thread.

Thanks Ben you know I will always take care of my trusted submitters. |thumb

Unfortunately your words are falling on deaf ears because most of the posters in this forum have made up their minds. They think I should do business their way and won't listen to anything I have to say. Which is fine. I don't need them for partners either :D

This is one of those issues where I can see both sides of the equation. For several reasons, I won't be posting names of offending link sites on my rules page.

For what it's worth, the only offending link sites that aren't already mentioned in this thread are those owned by a certain 'yafool' who I quite simply want nothing to do with. Pretty sure everyone can figure out who that is :D

However, as I always have...I will notify submitters if they're submitting with a known asshat on their recip page to me. For that matter, I still send out a rejection mail for whatever the reason the site didn't make the cut.

:) I didn't mention your name in that list. As I don't submit to your LL I wouldn't make that assumption on whether you would or wouldn't contact someone...that's why I didn't specifically mention any names and kept the conversation in generalities. The only people I did mention were Linkster and UW...because I submit to both and know both would go out of their way to contact. Now that you've said you would contact as well, I would certainly put you in the same category as the two mentioned.

My comments were only meant for discussion sake and nothing more. It wasn't meant as a point of criticism or praise, it was just meant for a little interesting back and forth discussion on a topic :D

|buddy| Amen...

When I submit a free-site -- a rare occurance nowadays -- I only submit to regualar posters on GG & Jim.

This boards given me a lot and I want to give back to those that have helped and supported me. Besides...regular posters here are either honest or obviously not and it's easy to avoid those few. :)

From January 7th I'm the owner of webadultlinks.com. Linkster, please remove the site from your list.