Dont submit sites with cheater LLs recips

[Linkster]

Mr Blue - basically in answer to your question about just tossing the free sites - since I work only with partner submitters - I do (and did in this case) send an email to the submitter to let them know for each and every case

I think that it would be tough to say - here's a list - because again a lot of LL owners dont consider copying somebodies recips a "cheating infraction" or they simply dont care as evidenced by their continual listings of sites that do have those recips - and yes these would be LL owners that do know about the occurences and even posted in the threads way back

[Mr. Blue]

Originally Posted by Linkster

Mr Blue - basically in answer to your question about just tossing the free sites - since I work only with partner submitters - I do (and did in this case) send an email to the submitter to let them know for each and every case

yeah you run a good show and I know you would toss an email if something was up.

I think that it would be tough to say - here's a list - because again a lot of LL owners dont consider copying somebodies recips a "cheating infraction" or they simply dont care as evidenced by their continual listings of sites that do have those recips - and yes these would be LL owners that do know about the occurences and even posted in the threads way back

Yeah, I understand that it's not everyone's rule...but that's why there's rule pages for every LL. I mean I submit to FilthyEarl, if I see on his rule page that he doesn't want his LL associated with x, y, z, etc...I won't put the recips with his. When someone says, so and so, cheated on their rule page, I'll usually look it up and drop them from my submit list if it's something I deem cheating as well.

I don't know, it just seems like a new LinkList is popping up daily now. It's getting hard to keep track of the players.

[MadMax]

Originally Posted by Mr. Blue

I don't know, it just seems like a new LinkList is popping up daily now. It's getting hard to keep track of the players.

70%-90% of those new LLs will fade into nothingness as their owners relize how much work it really is to run a LL. Plus, you've got to focus on getting traffic to give away for free, which is a concept some people don't find too appealing once they get right down to it

Theiving motherfuckers who can't be bothered to design their own recips should be taken out and buried in a pit of scarabs.

Link list owners that multisubmit (like fuckthensuck.com) are just fucking uncivilized.

[MrYum]

Originally Posted by MadMax

70%-90% of those new LLs will fade into nothingness as their owners relize how much work it really is to run a LL. Plus, you've got to focus on getting traffic to give away for free, which is a concept some people don't find too appealing once they get right down to it

Theiving motherfuckers who can't be bothered to design their own recips should be taken out and buried in a pit of scarabs.

Link list owners that multisubmit (like fuckthensuck.com) are just fucking uncivilized.

Well said Max

With a minor addition...add a fire ant mound in with the scarabs

Running a link site is definitely not for the feint of heart or those looking for a quick buck. It's more of a long LONG term love/hate kinda thang...lol.

[Mr. Blue]

lol, I run TGP's and it's pretty much the same mentality. I mean there's 4000 or so TGPs out there and around 40 that actually update and send decent traffic daily.

When I started submitting freesites again I used the quality over quantity equation and it seems to work nicely that way. Still, if there's a specific LL that pisses you off because they've cheated one way or another...it just seems easier to me to post their names on your rules page.

[Surfn]

I see several of you asking us to add the sites we won't list to our rules/submit pages. My reply is simple: Why should we do that when they come and go?

Here's the best tip for not getting rejected by any LL for having a link to someone they don't like for whatever reason, look at their friends list. Most lists have a list of friends longer than the number of recips most submitters use. Submit to those friends and use their recips and you won't get rejected for putting a link list in what they consider a bad neighborhood.

[Mr. Blue]

Originally Posted by Surfn

I see several of you asking us to add the sites we won't list to our rules/submit pages. My reply is simple: Why should we do that when they come and go?

I only submit to 22 LL and they're all well known, but for argument sake, let me just take a wack at this topic.

If you have a specific list of say 15 LL's that you deem cheating...that would take up maybe 1 line or 2 on the rules page. Wouldn't it ultimately save you time, the submitter time, etc by just posting it? I mean FilthyEarl for example, I know who UW doesn't want to be linked with and I don't. I also removed them from my submit list ages ago because of it. Just from this thread we have this list:

Cherry Picked Links, Porn Fresh, Fetish Crawler, J Loves Porn, fuckthensuck, linksforadult, flashinglinks, webadultlinks

For me it just seems like a quicker method. Linkster also stated, "...there are a lot of LL owners posting on this board who dont care that they cheat." For me it just makes it too much of a guessing game to figure out which linklist owner would think one thing is cheating and one thing isn't cheating.

So, throw 'em under the bus if you think they cheat, let the submitter know. For me the rules page is the guidelines to get listed or not...leaving out information just causes extra work for all involved.

[Preacher]

Originally Posted by MrYum

Running a link site is definitely not for the feint of heart or those looking for a quick buck. It's more of a long LONG term love/hate kinda thang...lol.

Amen...

When I submit a free-site -- a rare occurance nowadays -- I only submit to regualar posters on GG & Jim.

This boards given me a lot and I want to give back to those that have helped and supported me. Besides...regular posters here are either honest or obviously not and it's easy to avoid those few.