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

Ramster · 2007-04-01, 11:06 AM

600 pixels is NOT enough in my opinion.

I do TGP galleries and not too many take that size there neither. You have to remember that surfers and technology has evolved. Not many surf at 800x600 anymore so larger size makes it better and honestly better for you on sales. The surfer sees a nice big picture rather than one that only covers 50% of his screen and it has a better chance of turning him on IMO.

I personally use 800 on the long side with all galleries.

xxxthrills · 2007-04-01, 11:46 AM

Ramster,

I respect your opinion but I do not agree with it. Webmasters should be free to use what picture size works best for them. I found I had better conversions with 500 pixels than I am now having with 600 pixels.

Actually there are many tgps that accept less than 600 pixels still like The Hun. It's still more than adequate for the biggest and most successful tgp (free type of site) out on the net.

Based on your theory that technology has changed, then sponsors should be showing their sample video clips in much larger formats and in higher quality! Video technology has evolved too! Also movie tgps should be evolving into youtube type of sites!

A lot of webmasters are saying that their conversions are bad now, I wonder why! Too much qaulity free porn = lower conversions

Useless · 2007-04-01, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxthrills

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?

Member's area photos keep getting larger and with a higher resolution, and yet you still want to market them like it's 1999?

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxthrills

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!

Member's area photos keep getting larger and with a higher resolution, and yet you still want to market them like it's 1999? Who's the dinosaur here?

Clickbuster had a made a surprisingly good point in the the tube thread you mentioned. Link Links have remained pretty much unchanged, at least in the surfers' eyes, for a very long time. Increasing the pic count and quality is one the first steps of modernization in a long, long time. We can't accurately portray the product being marketed through the use of 600px photos anymore, nor can we be competitive with the new tube sites that are preparing to launch.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxthrills

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).

You're making your argument, as weak as it is, months after the policy change. And it's just silly that you'd say "especially for pornstar photos". So, it's all about you. Your niche. Your bandwidth.

Useless · 2007-04-01, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxthrills

Webmasters should be free to use what picture size works best for them.

They still are. No one is being forced to submit to the LOR.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxthrills

A lot of webmasters are saying that their conversions are bad now, I wonder why! Too much qaulity free porn = lower conversions

This is the same old gripe that's been there since the beginning. Too much free porn makes it difficult to sell porn in the free porn business model. We all complain about it while we continue to pump our servers full of more and more free porn.

jonnydoe · 2007-04-01, 01:26 PM

Back when 800x600 was a high resolution monitor 600 pics were just fine. I only have 10% of my surfers running it now and I bet that they are primarily foreign surfers that will never convert anyway. If you are concerned about file size PS batch your pics and they will get pretty small in weight.

If you wanna bitch about giving away too much free porn I would direct that to the sponsors that have page after page of free trailers... This is GG's house so he makes the rules ;-)

xxxthrills · 2007-04-01, 02:30 PM

Photos on free sites are just samples of much larger photos and higher resolution photos that you can see on paysites so it doesn't matter how big you make the sample photo. Paysite photos are always going to be bigger that's why surfers should pay to visit a paysite and not a free link site.

When you get a sample of a new product at the store you get a small sample. You do not get the whole product! It would cost the companies too much money and companies are not stupid. People know that the actual purchased product will be bigger! So useless warrier, can you get an accurate impression with such a small product sample from the store? Or do you want an entire product?

So from a smaller sized photo you should be able to figure out, especially when you mention it in your marketing, that you will be getting access to much larger and higher resolution photos. Paysite tours even mention this.

Many people including myself haven't used an 800x600 resolution since 1999 so link sites could have demanded huge photos since then.

I'm not bitching. I just want to hear GG&Jim's opinion on this. It's nice to hear your opinions, but I'm more interested in GG&Jim's.

Useless · 2007-04-01, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxthrills

I'm not bitching. I just want to hear GG&Jim's opinion on this. It's nice to hear your opinions, but I'm more interested in GG&Jim's.

You aren't the first.

http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/...ad.php?t=33685

Ramster · 2007-04-01, 05:58 PM

Opinions are opinions and good to have. I still think it is better to have larger pics. A surfer looks at a pic that is 600x480 might have to strain a bit to see what he wants. But a photo 800x600 fills the screen a lot more so he can focus on the girl's big tits (if that is the niche being pushed) and see them much better than with a smaller pic. That turns him on more and gets him to click to the sponsor more easily. Again that's my opinion.

Thehun may very well list any size but many do not and require pics at least 640 (not 800 but larger than 600). And MGPs have evolved. For 1-3 years now many require at least 15 second clips compared to before there was no real rule and some want file sizes larger than 1MB. When before 300Kb-500Kb was fine.

larrylint · 2007-04-02, 12:54 AM

I do not my following rules but they should be fair to all. I noticed that many links are posted that do not meet your 1200 rule.

Jim · 2007-04-02, 06:16 AM

I think there has to be a fine line between making surfers happy and not giving too much away. Linklist rules seem to be based on 2 things. Getting surfers and keeping them happy. And keeping the business model intact and strong.

Greenie and others have figured out that the 1200 pixel rule is keeping up with current surfer configurations. And still, keeps the business model strong.

Useless · 2007-04-02, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by larrylint

I do not my following rules but they should be fair to all. I noticed that many links are posted that do not meet your 1200 rule.

Those would be old listings (from before the rule was instituted) and hosted free sites. The LOR isn't playing favorites or being discriminatory.

If anyone would like to complain about other rules, such as no free hosting, no pop-ups, or no CP, go ahead and do that now. It's just as pointless. I didn't want to seem arrogant, but rules are rules. Fewer fucking people bitched when NetPond buried their free site listings, dropped their link exchanges and demanded 100 word fucking descriptions. Christ!

Greenguy · 2007-04-02, 08:47 AM

My opinion on this is in the http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/...ad.php?t=33685 thread as well as in this thread (odd how my opinions are the same as a couple other people - lol)

But what struck me as odd is this statement:

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxthrills

...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!....

Let me guess: you have a pornstar sponsor that you like to promote, but their pics are 600 on the long side & that limits you as far as where you can submit the sites/galleries. Am I right?

Useless · 2007-04-02, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greenie

My opinion on this...

Hey! Stay out of my thread!

jonnydoe · 2007-04-02, 09:25 AM

"Let me guess: you have a pornstar sponsor that you like to promote, but their pics are 600 on the long side & that limits you as far as where you can submit the sites/galleries. Am I right?"

If this is the case then he could enlarge them in PS with the right filters and come out with nice pics that meet the requirement (assuming the source files are pretty high quality).

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

2007-04-01, 11:06 AM	#2
Ramster Life is good Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 11,867	600 pixels is NOT enough in my opinion. I do TGP galleries and not too many take that size there neither. You have to remember that surfers and technology has evolved. Not many surf at 800x600 anymore so larger size makes it better and honestly better for you on sales. The surfer sees a nice big picture rather than one that only covers 50% of his screen and it has a better chance of turning him on IMO. I personally use 800 on the long side with all galleries. __________________ Pornstar Legends \| Live Cam Model Shows \| Hungarian Girls Skype: robmurray999

2007-04-01, 11:46 AM	#3
xxxthrills If something goes wrong at the plant, blame the guy who can't speak English Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Mississauga Posts: 34	Ramster, I respect your opinion but I do not agree with it. Webmasters should be free to use what picture size works best for them. I found I had better conversions with 500 pixels than I am now having with 600 pixels. Actually there are many tgps that accept less than 600 pixels still like The Hun. It's still more than adequate for the biggest and most successful tgp (free type of site) out on the net. Based on your theory that technology has changed, then sponsors should be showing their sample video clips in much larger formats and in higher quality! Video technology has evolved too! Also movie tgps should be evolving into youtube type of sites! A lot of webmasters are saying that their conversions are bad now, I wonder why! Too much qaulity free porn = lower conversions __________________ Submit galleries to Pussylicious

2007-04-01, 01:26 PM	#6
jonnydoe Stupid risks make life worth living Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 381	Back when 800x600 was a high resolution monitor 600 pics were just fine. I only have 10% of my surfers running it now and I bet that they are primarily foreign surfers that will never convert anyway. If you are concerned about file size PS batch your pics and they will get pretty small in weight. If you wanna bitch about giving away too much free porn I would direct that to the sponsors that have page after page of free trailers... This is GG's house so he makes the rules ;-) __________________ Adult Hosting Submission Programs Adult Sponsors

2007-04-01, 02:30 PM	#7
xxxthrills If something goes wrong at the plant, blame the guy who can't speak English Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Mississauga Posts: 34	photo size Photos on free sites are just samples of much larger photos and higher resolution photos that you can see on paysites so it doesn't matter how big you make the sample photo. Paysite photos are always going to be bigger that's why surfers should pay to visit a paysite and not a free link site. When you get a sample of a new product at the store you get a small sample. You do not get the whole product! It would cost the companies too much money and companies are not stupid. People know that the actual purchased product will be bigger! So useless warrier, can you get an accurate impression with such a small product sample from the store? Or do you want an entire product? So from a smaller sized photo you should be able to figure out, especially when you mention it in your marketing, that you will be getting access to much larger and higher resolution photos. Paysite tours even mention this. Many people including myself haven't used an 800x600 resolution since 1999 so link sites could have demanded huge photos since then. I'm not bitching. I just want to hear GG&Jim's opinion on this. It's nice to hear your opinions, but I'm more interested in GG&Jim's. Last edited by xxxthrills; 2007-04-01 at 02:37 PM..

2007-04-01, 05:58 PM	#9
Ramster Life is good Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 11,867	Opinions are opinions and good to have. I still think it is better to have larger pics. A surfer looks at a pic that is 600x480 might have to strain a bit to see what he wants. But a photo 800x600 fills the screen a lot more so he can focus on the girl's big tits (if that is the niche being pushed) and see them much better than with a smaller pic. That turns him on more and gets him to click to the sponsor more easily. Again that's my opinion. Thehun may very well list any size but many do not and require pics at least 640 (not 800 but larger than 600). And MGPs have evolved. For 1-3 years now many require at least 15 second clips compared to before there was no real rule and some want file sizes larger than 1MB. When before 300Kb-500Kb was fine. __________________ Pornstar Legends \| Live Cam Model Shows \| Hungarian Girls Skype: robmurray999

2007-04-02, 12:54 AM	#10
larrylint Internet! Is that thing still around? Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 9	I do not my following rules but they should be fair to all. I noticed that many links are posted that do not meet your 1200 rule.

2007-04-02, 06:16 AM	#11
Jim Banned Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Mohawk, New York Posts: 19,477	I think there has to be a fine line between making surfers happy and not giving too much away. Linklist rules seem to be based on 2 things. Getting surfers and keeping them happy. And keeping the business model intact and strong. Greenie and others have figured out that the 1200 pixel rule is keeping up with current surfer configurations. And still, keeps the business model strong.

2007-04-02, 09:25 AM	#15
jonnydoe Stupid risks make life worth living Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 381	"Let me guess: you have a pornstar sponsor that you like to promote, but their pics are 600 on the long side & that limits you as far as where you can submit the sites/galleries. Am I right?" If this is the case then he could enlarge them in PS with the right filters and come out with nice pics that meet the requirement (assuming the source files are pretty high quality). __________________ Adult Hosting Submission Programs Adult Sponsors