I know your getting tired of my BBW :)
 

Took me long enough but I finally got my new site up for Large breasts Getting togeather all the new recips was a pain in the arse! Anyways anyone not interested in big boobs sites or anyone Im not currently listing to that is interested in Big Boobs traffic let me know. New site sample:

http://www.xxx-big-breasts.net/big-boob/

At first glance it looks ok for me.. We will list it...
BTW its not neccesary to use link to 2257 on every page ;)

I counted 4 outgoing links on the index page, you don't need 2257 on every page, and your 2257 isn't really valid anyway.

Alex

One thing SortLinks and Alex, several of the larger link lists do indeed require a 2257 link on every page. I consider it one of those things that if a few require it might as well do it for all to be safe.
Just like even though some lists allow you to put pics on html pages, just simpler not to do it at all.

Looks good but like RawAlex said, you have 4 off site links on the index page so I wouldn't list. Sorry. :(

Could you please list a few of the larger ones that require this - as I am getting ready to start submitting again and just need to know where not to bother submitting :)

Forgot the paragraph tag splits a link into 2 links :) this is fixed

I would like to know to as I havent had any problem with putting 2257 on just the index.

Cybersexhound looks good to me Id list it now thats its fixed with the 4 links issue.

I put a 2257 link on every page out of habit - I know the 2257 link really dont mean anything but looks good,

how could a LL require a 2257 link - they dont own the site and just link to it.. crazy

The only Link List that I've seen a "2257 on every page" rule is "The Red Cherry".
I'm not in a position to judge whether or not The Red Cherry is a larger Link List!
|dizzy|

Here's the link in case anyone wants to take a look: http://www.theredcherry.com/cgi-bin/links/zzz4756.cgi
:)

We shoud wait then what The Red Cherry's owner will say ;)
btw..1freepornfinder and some others dont allow 'explicit pictures' (even pics with nude boobs sometimes) on index page so take it into account and dont use explicit on index page

Agreed.
I really like TheRedCherry as a website. It's a nice little place.
:)

There are loads of general rules to follow, but it's the individual link list rules that make things really complicated for a freesite submitter. As it happens I enjoy working through these issues and solving any little "problems". Even if it means adjusting everything to accomodate one quite sensible rule. As others have said if we don't like a linklist rule we can always not bother to submit there.

It would be great to standardise the most common rules with link lists just saying "usual rules apply", but I guess there are way too many cheating-shortcutting-blindlinking-scumbags for that!
:)

yeah...its wise to standardise all the time while submiting

Yup, though MadHatters and Red Cherry link lists may not be among the largest, the traffic their sites send me is among the larger :)
Their sites have that rule along with a couple pr 2-3 sites..
Again in no way did I want to imply that rule was extremely prominent with the majority of link lists...just that it was there.

The main point is there ARE a lot of differences in various link lists rules, and that I for one have found it easier and more time efficient to make my sites compliant with the majority rather then creating sites to take advantage of what each link list allows.

Sure some link lists allow 4 out going links per page while others(most) limit it to 3...do I make sites with 4 links per page because its allowed at some? No I simplify and just make them 3 max to satisfy all.

Other link lists allow full size images on html pages, but most don't...so I don't make any sites with full images on html even though I lose an opportunity for extra sales opportunities.

Several high traffic link lists allow us to use mild consoles at the sponsors sites, but as many others do not, I do not on any site I submit...even though my sponsor payouts are greatly reduced and I lose a profitable source of income.

There is even a large discrepancy as to what a blind link is. Quite honestly I believe that when my whole freesite is geared to promoting a single site and I have a link thats says something like "See the full versions now!" or "For a limited time you get FREE ACCESS!" they are not blind links but simply aggresive marketing.

But a large number of link list owners DO consider those to be blind links, so you know what? I don't use those type of links on the free sites I submit. I will add the redundant @sponsor.com

All of those more aggresive sales techniques (consoles, exit dumps, teasing text) and others I do use but not on my free sites I submit.

Sure it would be nice if every link list had exactly the same rules and requirements...it would make my job easier. But every one of them has the absolute right to DEMAND exactly what they want on their link lists.

So I feel it is up to me to do the standardization...the vanillarization of my sites to meet every ones requirements. If I don't like a particular rule, it is my choice whether I submit to that list or not. I either adapt my site to their wishes or drop them from my submit list. Not the link lists owners obligation to change for me.

I totally agree.
I've been going through the rules pages of just under 100 link lists in preparation for a huge submittal push very soon, and sometimes it seems like a nasty jigsaw puzzle!
|dizzy|

I've only knocked a few link lists off my submittal list because of rules that seemed a bit too demanding, and I think that accommodating most LL rules into a mass of good freesites is possible.
I'd love to see the dozen or so common rules set in stone somehow, but I guess it keeps us on our toes and filters out those that cheat or can't be bothered to make the effort. Ultimately, the rules have been put in place to help honest webmasters.
:)