link-o-rama.com picture height and width rule

xxxthrills · 2007-04-01, 10:59 AM

I read your discussion on the topic: "Do we, as an adult webmaster community, oppose supporting adult versions of YouTube"?

When I last looked at your poll, most webmasters were against such sites.

This leads me in to what I realy want to discuss. I used to submit to your link list until you came out with this ridiculous rule:

4. Pics must have a combined width & height of 1200 pixels. Good: 700 + 525 = 1225 Bad: 640 + 480 = 1120

Why in the world would you want to offer even more higher quality and extremely large photos for free when there is so much free porn for the surfer to jerk off to without having to buy? Over the years, webmasters and sponsors have been giving away higher and higher quality free porn more and more. It just doesn't make sense! When a company creates new consumer products, they offer small samples not an entire box or case!

I feel that pictures with the longest side being 600 pixels is more than adequate for free porn sites. Adult webmasters over the years have been following the herd mentalitly of the wildebeests or better still the herd of dinosaurs who were frightened and stampeded to their deaths. They ended up going over a cliff, falling into a fast moving river where they drowned en masse only to be fossilized for eternity. If adult link lists and tgps continue to offer higher and higher quality free porn, you may also go the way of these dinosaurs!

What I ask is that you re-consider and change this rule to the longest side being 600 pixels for pic (especially for pornstar photos). I would like to submit my sites to your link list again, but not under the current picture height and width requirements!

Peter

2007-04-01, 10:59 AM	#1
xxxthrills If something goes wrong at the plant, blame the guy who can't speak English Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Mississauga Posts: 34	link-o-rama.com picture height and width rule I read your discussion on the topic: "Do we, as an adult webmaster community, oppose supporting adult versions of YouTube"? When I last looked at your poll, most webmasters were against such sites. This leads me in to what I realy want to discuss. I used to submit to your link list until you came out with this ridiculous rule: 4. Pics must have a combined width & height of 1200 pixels. Good: 700 + 525 = 1225 Bad: 640 + 480 = 1120 Why in the world would you want to offer even more higher quality and extremely large photos for free when there is so much free porn for the surfer to jerk off to without having to buy? Over the years, webmasters and sponsors have been giving away higher and higher quality free porn more and more. It just doesn't make sense! When a company creates new consumer products, they offer small samples not an entire box or case! I feel that pictures with the longest side being 600 pixels is more than adequate for free porn sites. Adult webmasters over the years have been following the herd mentalitly of the wildebeests or better still the herd of dinosaurs who were frightened and stampeded to their deaths. They ended up going over a cliff, falling into a fast moving river where they drowned en masse only to be fossilized for eternity. If adult link lists and tgps continue to offer higher and higher quality free porn, you may also go the way of these dinosaurs! What I ask is that you re-consider and change this rule to the longest side being 600 pixels for pic (especially for pornstar photos). I would like to submit my sites to your link list again, but not under the current picture height and width requirements! Peter __________________ Submit galleries to Pussylicious