LL owners, who's friendly to search engine style freesites?

[Bill]

Since there are a lot of new LLs since the last time this was discussed much, I wanted to ask which linklists want to list _search engine freesites_, as opposed to the standard pure formula freesite.

What's the difference? SE freesites are more like the old style dmoz sites. It's basically a freesite with a lot more links than on a formula freesite. So no only-3-links-out rules, these sites could have 50 links out on the index page.

There's a couple different grades of SEfreesite, too. There's what I think of as the dmoz sefreesite, which is small and simple, and the yahoo sefreesite (based on what yahoo directory sites can be like) which is big and messy.

Here's a sample of a dmoz sefreesite:
http://www.amateur-girl-porn.com/amateur-girl-porn/

Here's a yahoo sefreesite:
http://www.pussy-freepussy.com/

Typically yahoo freesites have more pr and are spidered more.

An sefriendly Linklist would also keep listings permanently. Unlike a formula freesite which is built and forgotten, an sefreesite is maintained for many years, so the linking should be permanent.

All you guys who are uptight as nuns about 3linksout, don't worry, I understand your preferences and I'm not looking for any modifications to your policy.

I just want to know what linklists would be happy to link with se-style freesites.

[Rocco]

interesting view Bill, seems as if there aren't many LL's who would list these kind of sites, cause rules are here to set a standard that gives all the same chances. making exceptions would mean that not every submitter will get the same chances.

[Bill]

Well Rocco, I wanted to see who among the new crop of owners would want that kind of linking. There are a small number of the older LLs that are friendly to or at least tolerant of sites like this. If no one is looking to provide that kind of linking it suggests an interesting business possibility.

I'm a little surprised that you wouldn't see the potential in that kind of linking. But, as you argue, you are thinking of your other submitters.

I'm just asking about it, I'm not saying anyone _should_ do it.

[Kinky]

I don't think that the current model of link lists will go for it, they read the rules of the big lists and follow suit mostly just to hold back the cheaters... to make that work wouldn't you need trusted site builders so that you don't have to worry about policing it? aren't those examples of old school free sites that got canned by all the cheaters? it does seem to have good potential but then I'm drinking and could be way out in left field right now

and Bill you hit 1000 where is hanging out at?

[Ann Omness]

I'd accept sites like those as long as I can find my recip link easily.

[neveremail]

I'll be making free sites soon and I find this topic quite intersting.

DO you mean to say that link lists only allow 3 links out (other than link list recips) on your warning/index page. I thought this rule only applied to main pages to keep them clean. I admit i never checked but to me I would have thought they would allow some hardlink trades or traffic trades right at the bottom of the warning page as It would benifit them also with some traffic and more PR etc.

But i suppose as you generally mirror your free site (with say 9 recips on each) you could just have one main one which had all the link trades, and link back all the mirrors to your hub, and have your hub linked to a sitemap (hidden out the way a bit to stop freeloaders looking at every bit of free content you have), and the sitemap is linked to all of the mirrors.

Am I on the right track here or just talking shit??

[Bill]

Kinky, you're right, it would take a somewhat greater sense of "trusted submitters". But we are moving towards that anyway with partners accounts and paid submitting.

What cheaters do is put toolbar installers and redirects on their sites after they've been listed. That's possible wether or not the sites fit the strict formula. (Then we get into gray areas like geo-redirects...). I think the trusted submitter model, however it's set up, is a much stronger protection against any kind of cheating than a strict site formula.

Yep, my Buddy's coming, ha ha ha! Fuckin Hilarious!

[Bill]

Thank you Ann, that's good to hear and good to know. I don't currently submit to you, altho you've been around for a while.

I'm going to study your site and start submitting my regular freesites to you, so you can get to know my stuff.

[Bill]

Originally Posted by neveremail

DO you mean to say that link lists only allow 3 links out (other than link list recips) on your warning/index page. I thought this rule only applied to main pages to keep them clean.

...

But i suppose as you generally mirror your free site (with say 9 recips on each) you could just have one main one which had all the link trades, and link back all the mirrors to your hub, and have your hub linked to a sitemap (hidden out the way a bit to stop freeloaders looking at every bit of free content you have), and the sitemap is linked to all of the mirrors.

It depends on the linklist neveremail. Some have become very strict about any extra links on any page, while some will accept a small amout, and others aren't much concerned with what you put underneath you enter link if you don't try to trick people into not entering the site.

The ones that are strict mostly have become so in the past 20 months or so- I think as a result of the big increase in the job and cost of reviewing and checking websites. The simpler and stricter the site, the easier it is to review it.

Some places will allow the "hub" linking you talk about, some will only allow it as the '3rd link out'. I've taken to doing it mostly as the '3rd link out' because of uptight LL webmasters.

[CaptainJSparrow]

Hi Guys,

I accept sites like that. I don't count outgoing links on sites that've been submitted. My rules are pretty simple, if you deliver what you're promising to the surfer and have the proper link back to me, I usually will list you.

[MrYum]

Think you hit the nail on the head with the trust issue Bill

If it were someone I knew...and had spoken with previously on the subject...quite possible I would list those.

But then, I'm not as strict as some folks on outbound links. I currently allow a couple extra links to internal hubs...other free sites, etc..

As long as the links aren't deceptive and 'in your face'...it's cool

[Yahook]

Hello Bill, I can list your freesites, please contact me by ICQ

[SmithsMedia]

bill anything thats good for the SE is good to list in my book - though my hub is not a regular LL (I'm still moving towards that business model)

[MadMax]

Originally Posted by Bill

Some places will allow the "hub" linking you talk about, some will only allow it as the '3rd link out'. I've taken to doing it mostly as the '3rd link out' because of uptight LL webmasters.

Before you're too harsh on "uptight LL webmasters" you might want to spend a day in the reviewer's seat

It's difficult for upstanding webmasters who submit quality sites to understand the kind of madness and chaos that passes across the reviewer's screen on a daily basis.

I've listed SE style free sites before, and I'm still willing to list them...but ONLY with prior contact and only for webmasters I know and only if the sites still follow the spirit of the listing guidelines. In fact, we've done a hard link trade between pussy-freepussy.com and one of my niche hubs

When I first launched Fetish Philes I listed several of these types of sites, then slowly but surely had to delete and ban because my recips were removed.

I couldn't list pussy-freepussy.com in my regular site listings, because there are basic rules that the site doesn't follow...blind links, and the page after the warning page is basically an FPA with a misleading enter link then a small link to get to the actual main page where the links to the content are. I can bend rules for SE benefit, but I can't throw them out the window and still maintain order.

That said, I'd still be willing to trade hard links between my category pages and this type of site. If your end game really is SEO, then perhaps you should look in this direction. You'd likely find a lot more LL owners willing to trade hard links with you than set dangerous precedents by listing sites that don't follow the rules.

What you're calling a "free site" in this application is really a hubbed out warning page with a standard freesite back end. My big concern on this type of site is what it may turn into as more and more links are added.


Why not fully utilize the hub like many others do (including myself)?

Use the domain root as the hub (still with a warning and main page) and do all your trades there, then build standard free sites in subdirectories to submit to link lists...all of which are listed on the hub's main page. Your links from the hub's main page to your free sites can all be to clean warning pages without recips, and then follow on to the content of each individual free site.

This way you actually get to put more advertising between the surfer and the porn, plus get all the SEO benefits on the hub itself and a shitload more inbound links for the domain as a whole. Why settle for one link to your domain from each big LL when you can have as many as you can build free sites? Also put a link to your hub in with the recips on every mirrored warning page you submit. I'd be willing to list the standard free sites AS WELL AS do a hard link trade between the appropriate category page and the hub.

Also, I don't know how much time you've spend submitting standard free sites, but even on domains where I do nothing with the root I still see about 5% of surfers (all of them coming from a LL to a free site in a subdirectory) still backing out the subdirectories in the URL and going to the domain root (likely looking for more porn).

IMO, your net traffic and SEO will both be better with this model and you'll spend much less time frustrated.

Just a thought.

[Bill]

Max, what frustration I might have with uptight linklist owners comes _completely_ from my ordinary freesites. Not at all from my sefreesites. So the two things are really completely seperate.

And cmon, you LL owners bitch about us lousy submitters on a constant basis, is the rule now that we submitters can't occasionally bitch about owners and their idiosyncrasies? I'm sure you LL owners can take a little gentle ribbing. ;-}

And I did (or tried to) make a distinction between yahoo-style sefreesites, like pussy-freepussy, and DMOZ style freesites, which are much cleaner and simpler.

Yahoo style freesites were never intended to be linked by anything like a conventional linklist. I presented it as an example, to show that not all sefreesites are the same.

I may have muddied the water more than cleared it by talking about yahoo style sefreesites at all. Sorry about that.

So, what I was really talking about was linking to the dmoz-style sefreesites.

There's a lot more interesting stuff in your excellent post. You bring up category linking, which I was also going to bring up. There's almost too much to reply to, so I will pick one thing.

You said:
"What you're calling a "free site" in this application is really a hubbed out warning page with a standard freesite back end. My big concern on this type of site is what it may turn into as more and more links are added."

Yes, an accurate description, and that is something that does happen with sites like these- they do grow links over time. I can see that might be something that could get out of control. (In theory, they also increase in relevancy and ranking, which they pass back to the LL, much more so than a run of the mill freesite.)

However, there are excellent long established lists that don't seem to find this a big problem, as long as it's kept well under the enter link. It hasn't destroyed their lists or their reputation.

[Bill]

While I'm at it, I wanted to thank everyone for participating in this thread!

Captain, you are well known as someone who appreciates the value of se traffic, and how to get it.

Mr Yum, Yahook, and NochexContact, thanks for reponding, I'm taking a closer look at your lists, and I expect others are too.

Thanks to everyone. It's an interesting conversation.

[MadMax]

Originally Posted by Bill

And cmon, you LL owners bitch about us lousy submitters on a constant basis, is the rule now that we submitters can't occasionally bitch about owners and their idiosyncrasies? I'm sure you LL owners can take a little gentle ribbing. ;-}

As long as the ribbing doesn't involve a Trojan I'm fine with it

Originally Posted by Bill

I may have muddied the water more than cleared it by talking about yahoo style sefreesites at all. Sorry about that.

If we're talking solely about sites like the DMOZ style site you posted above, that's another matter entirely. I got kinda sidetracked by the yahoo style site I have no problem with some hard link trades well below the enter link on a free site...but again, only for those I know and only if I'm expecting this type of site from them. On a straight public submit I'd still decline, because with an unknown submitter I'd have to follow all those links while reviewing and, well...if I had to spend 5 minutes reviewing every submission nobody would get listed