ATTN: Webmasters submitting to the hoes.com gay category
 

I've recently noticed there's some confusion on the part of several webmasters submitting their freesites to the subcategories of the gay section at hoes.com. What I'm finding is that they're either not submitting the site to the correct subcategory or they're using the incorrect recip.

For instance, if the content you are promoting focuses on a situation involving twinks, please use the twink recip we provide and submit the site to our twink category. Too often I see sites being submitted to our twink category, but the site is using the 'gay fucking' recip or 'free gay movies' recip. I reviewed a site today submitted to the gay/big dick category and the content was promoting the niche, but the webmaster chose to use the 'twink' recip. I had no choice, but to decline the site.

Ultimately, your sites will be accepted if the recip matches the category that the site was submitted to as long as both match the content being promoted.

Chuck

Hoes declines sites if they have the incorrect category link/text in the recip?

There are a couple of places that do that. I don't sub to hoes anymore, but there are recip nazis in several places.

It doesn't make sense, knowing what we now know about the devaluing of reciprocal linking and repitition of anchor text, but it's very common to see people using search engine theories and language that are years out of date.

What a strange coincidence.

What's so strange about this? We don't want our surfers to follow your link assuming it's one thing and show them something else. So subcategory selection is very important to us. Obviously the recip needs to match the category. Let's keep things targetted. Some webmasters just don't want to take the extra few seconds to grab a different recip. Instead they use the same one over and over.

marc

I just declined two sites this morning for this. I guess I'm a "recip nazis". |crazy|

It's your site & you make the rules, but that explanation falls flat when you throw in there that, based on the example above, the person was clicking on a link that said "twinks" which I assume went to the twinks page.

I can sorta see your point, but I don't think I'd decline a site because the recip they had up there was off by a sub-niche (meaning that a gay recip on a big tit site would catch my eye & probably be declined, but not a gay sub-niche on another gay sub-niche site)

Hoes is excellent traffic and marc's a good guy. I'm the first person who replied to his initial post on greenies old board, annoucing the startup of hoes. I've always admired his project.

But, I don't approve of his policy on "Click Here" - and I can afford to do without his traffic, so I stopped subbing when he started that policy. It's nice being successful enough that you can say "I don't agree with your policy, so I won't sub to you because of it.". I recognize most people can't afford to do that.

That's the only reason I don't sub there anymore.

But, for search engine purposes, it doesn't make sense to only accept a site because the links point to another page on the site, especially if it is a related page. And it really doesn't make sense to demand one specific anchor text if the webmaster is willing to write unique anchor text.

Knowing what we now now about how google treats too-similar anchor text and recip links, the link list owners should be ebncouraging people to write their own anchor text, and should be happier to get a link to a non reciprocal page than to a reciprocal page.

If the sites were otherwise okay, and you had no reason to suspect they were from risky webmasters, it's crazy for a little linklist owner like you to decline for that reason.

There could be other extenuating factors. You might have had good reason to reject those sites otherwise.

But recip links are weaker now.

Look at how greeny does his gay recip linking - he gets at least double the sales exposure from one link, and avoids the page to page recip weakness.

While I don't claim to be a search engine expert, I do know that lazy webmasters make me scratch my head and go "huh?". For example (what I was talking about in my earlier post) was a toon site that a webmaster submitted to me but used the recip for the movie category. |huh

Little? Who you callin' little? |catfight|

LOL

Was it a lousy site otherwise? Would you have been happy to have it, except for the recip? Werte you suspicious of the submitter, or was it a new submitter?

Do you figure there's no chance a toon surfer would be interested in movies?

The search engine effect of that link is VERY VERY weak.

Having a good submitter who trusts you and keeps sending you content and links is much more valuable to you than the effects of one or even 50 wrong links.

My writing error was bugging me, this should read:

"But, for search engine purposes, it doesn't make sense to _not_ accept a site _only_ because the links point to another page on the site, especially if it is a related page."

Some would say its so weak as to be not worth the typing of the HTML! :)

Some would say that it does so much damage to the index page of the free site that is far more a negative than any sort of positive! :)

DD

Some would say a lot of things where search engines are concerned. I'm going to gracefully bow out of this discussion now and leave it to those with the "big link list's". :)

I would have to agree totally with this - and after running tests for a year I would say that having category recips actually hurts in the long run - Ive tried both and Ive made up my mind
Thats why I am reverting to regular recips again - and forever this time!!

Sorry that some of you think this policy is "tough". I'm very anal and like to keep my ducks in a row. Maintaining highly targetted inbound links is one of my goals for my reviewers. TRUST ME, it helps submitters in the long run. You WANT a surfer eventually clicking on your free site in my "twinks" category that has just clicked on a "twinks" link on a recip. It's good, clean target marketing.

I agree that some of the gay subcats are cross-overs meaning they appeal to the same people, but I prefer to maintain my rule.

marc

\

Thanks for the nice comment.

Care to post a link or two so I can see what we're missing? Maybe it's "close enough"

:-)

marc

I'm not trying to be an ass, but I think your missing my point - your reasoning falls short because, based on the example posted, the surfer would have clicked on a link that said "twinks" that went to a page of twink sites.

It's your site & you can do what you want, I'm just trying to understand the thought process behind it.

Well, naturally I don't want to post my best niches, but here's a recent site in a niche that's pretty mediocre for me.

http://www.sexy-latina-girls.net/cummy-chica/

As you can see, I'm using 'click here' as agressively as I feel I reasonably can. So, I kinda hope it's not close enough. ;-}

In a lot of site designs I use it, and other gimmicks, even more agressively. I'm sure your reviewers were skipping my sites for too-agressive ads before you started the 'click here' policy.

Everybody here agrees with the basic principle of "your site, your rules". If I want to get listed with you, I should build a second version of each site that is adjusted to your rules and reviewers.

Doing that is one of those things I always think I should get around to doing, but I just haven't worked it into my daily schedule.

Thanks for your kind understanding. Yes, my reviewers know not to accept free sites like this. The reason why I started this rule was because I was getting lots of comments from surfers about getting hit with popups, not getting free content from free sites, etc... It was because they couldn't find the ENTER link beneath the "click heres". Or they never made it that far down the page.

Thanks again for understanding.

marc

What "Click Here" policy? |huh All I see is no "Enter Here" on the index page, which is typical of most link list rules.

Licker4U, I don't know if it's listed in his rules.

But a bit more than a year ago marc came here and made a big post about 'click here' in sales text, and how hoes wasn't going to be accepting it any more.

I adjusted some test sites to remove 'click here' from the entry page, but reviewers rejected sites with 'click here' anywhere in the site.

It doesn't make sense to put hoes recips on a site, and lose the sales power of 'click here', when nobody else was using that rule.

Hoes already had the reputation of being the strictest LL. Some others have become more strict in the past few years, so it may make a lot more sense now to build a specialized site for the strictest linklists.

I didn't realize hoes.com had a reputation of being strict! I thought we were kinda loose actually. Other than the "click here" of course.

I don't have nearly the amount of rules as some of the other big link lists.

marc

Well, marc, I don't know if everyone would agree that hoes has that reputation, but it has come up in conversations I've had with people.

On the other hand, when you do list a site the listing is a good one, that lasts.

My own experience, before I stopped subbing after the 'click here' stuff, is probably pretty typical. Pretty much every linklist I submit to lists every one of my sites, all of the time. When they don't accept the site, it's for a good understandable reason.

But hoes reviewers were only accepting about 6 out of 10, on average. Why they accepted one and not another, I had no clue. I did various tests to try to figure out why the acceptance ratio at hoes was so bad - sometimes a site I thought was very agressive would be accepted, sometimes a really clean site would be rejected.

I've discussed with people, over the years, the various reasons why sites might not get accepted at hoes - Is the use of a hub or small linklist link as the 3rd link out the problem? Does hoes have a harder content policy? Is there some word or another that hoes reviewers don't like?

What can I say - same site, everyone else accepts it every single time, but hoes reviewers don't. That makes you more strict. ;-}