Banned for Bogus whois

[gilbert]

Hi, All!
My domain 1-smoking.com is banned with "Bogus whois" reason.
I think domain banned, because I use ns servers like ns1.1-smoking.com. But I bought dedicated server for my free sites and I use ns.domain.com for all my new domains. I don't know, why you guys don't like it. Cheaters and multisubmitters use different names and adresses in their whois info - it's BOGUS WHOIS, but I'm always use my info for ALL my domains, don't hide it with whois guard.
Many of LL owners know me as a good webmaster.
So, can you remove me from blacklist?
Gilbert.

[RawAlex]

Gilbert, I have been tolerant of your sites because they tend to be decent, but that layout that you have for your name servers is just not going to cut it. Select 1 domain to be your DNS server, and use that for all your domains. Self-dns is a major, major no-no that says "scammer" in big capital letters.

Alex

[Cleo]

Ditto on what Alex said

[gilbert]

Thanks for answers.
I can use one ns for all my domain -it's not a problem, but I think, someone, who banned my domain, want to see dns from hosting company in whois info. I don't know how to do it on dedicated server.

[ladydesigner]

Gilbert,

I have a dedicated server and all my domains have the same nameserver (my hosting company) listed in whois. It is possible. I'd contact your host.

[Useless]

I've had a server in the past where I had to use my own nameservers, but as stated above, you should pick only one domain for that purpose. There is no solid reason that I know of to set up your DNS records so that every domain appears to be a NS. I know why cheaters do that, but honest webmasters definately should not.

[tigermom]

Ok, just checking here, is there a problem submitting sites that are hosted on different servers? I try to get my sites on various servers for SEO reasons, so some of them would have different nameservers, obviously. Would that be a problem?

Also, my domains have privacy on them. I do this not to scam anyone with multi submissions (heck, I registered the domains long before I even contemplated doing freesites), but because I'd like to protect my privacy from any punters who might be looking around. I have a mainstream business that I do not wish to be associated with my adult business. I also have small children and I prefer not to have their mommy's name up on the net in association with adult sites. Anyway, so far I see that my freesites are accepted pretty much everywhere, so I'm guessing it's not that much of an issue? or am I wrong here?

[gilbert]

Thanks for answers!
I will use one domain for my dns in future or will try to contact my support for hosting nameservers, if it's possible.

Greenguy, can you remove my domain 1-smoking.com from blacklist? I will try to solve dns problem in few days, but I want to submit my free sites to link-o-rama until it will be done

[Xeno]

Originally Posted by tigermom

Also, my domains have privacy on them. ...but because I'd like to protect my privacy from any punters who might be looking around. I have a mainstream business that I do not wish to be associated with my adult business. I also have small children and I prefer not to have their mommy's name up on the net in association with adult sites. Anyway, so far I see that my freesites are accepted pretty much everywhere, so I'm guessing it's not that much of an issue? or am I wrong here?

I personally frown on those who reject on private domain whois...its even more important now to keep your personal information private and to ensure security. This info can definitely be used for nasty things when people, marketers, spammers, can take full advantage of this (or worse)...and they definitely look at whois details. Like you said Tigermom, you run a mainstream business (just as I do) and you dont' want this associated with the adult side. And those who have kids, well, this is another critical factor in "not" displaying whois info. I recently found out alexa collected and posted my personal address I had from before...I sent them an email stating how FURIOUS I was that they did that without MY PERMISSION. Overall, I personally use private whois.

Getting banned, blacklisted, whatever, by anyone because of the occasional scammers out there, why should "everyone" who is legit and honest pay the price...

I do agree though that self dns's can be a problem.

[Useless]

Originally Posted by NetGoonie

I personally frown on those who reject on private domain whois...

I guess it's a good thing that the majority of us don't personally care about what you frown upon.

How many times does the subject of private whois need to be covered? Keep an honest and open whois or don't whine about being rejected for it. Everyone who wants to hide their whois always seems to think that they are the first and only person to have ever considered the consequences of making their name and home address open the public. As the saying goes, find another hobby.

[tigermom]

Originally Posted by Useless Warrior

I guess it's a good thing that the majority of us don't personally care about what you frown upon.

Hmmmm and you are the "majority of us" now? This is a board and people are entitled to express their opinions without getting sarcastic remarks.

To the owners of this board - this is the kind of posting that drive people away. If members show no respect to opinions expressed by others, what's the point of having any discussion?

Now, UW, am I to understand that you reject sites at Scorpiolinks based on private Whois? if so kindly let us know and mention it in your rules. Will save us both time

[Wazza]

Originally Posted by tigermom

Now, UW, am I to understand that you reject sites at Scorpiolinks based on private Whois? if so kindly let us know and mention it in your rules. Will save us both time

Of course he doesn't...

The general consensus amongst the people who send the traffic is that private / bullshit whois info isn't cool. Argue with them as much as you like, but I doubt you'll change one single opinion.

[MrYum]

Originally Posted by tigermom

Hmmmm and you are the "majority of us" now? This is a board and people are entitled to express their opinions without getting sarcastic remarks.

To the owners of this board - this is the kind of posting that drive people away. If members show no respect to opinions expressed by others, what's the point of having any discussion?

Now, UW, am I to understand that you reject sites at Scorpiolinks based on private Whois? if so kindly let us know and mention it in your rules. Will save us both time

Well, UW certainly represents a pretty good cross section of link list owners views as he's been reviewing sites for quite some time. Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and to express those opinions. HOWEVER, don't be surprised when those that have been around a while point out that a subject has been hashed and re-hashed and RE-HASHED AGAIN...at length. Board search is indeed a wonderful thing.

As to driving people away, that's entirely possible...and they were people that needed to be driven away too

Sorry Tigermom...you're doing to need a bit thicker skin if his post offended you that much.

Back to the subject at hand...yes, I do indeed decline sites based on private or bogus whois information. As Greenie himself so eloquently put it (paraphrasing here...too lazy to grab the text), "Would you do business in the offline world with someone who didn't want you to have any of their information?" and "This is a business and should be treated as such".

That said, I have been known to make exceptions...many reviewers will not...period! I specifically didn't check a recent new submitter because he was recommended by someone I respect. I did indeed check your whois Tigermom and chose to ignore the issue since you appeared to be genuine and trying hard. Again, there are many that do not make exceptions and I certainly understand why...as I'm getting closer and closer to that myself.

You have NO idea the stuff we review every day. Not whining...it goes with the turf. But, there are reasons we do the checks we do on submitters...and no, I won't specifically go into what those checks are...that would make it too easy for the scammers. YES, the scammers DO make it harder for everyone...NO, it's not fair! Welcome to the world of the adult internet...it IS the way it IS...and we deal with things as best we can...that's the truth.

Frankly, if you're in a position in life that you cannot have real information in your whois...perhaps a re-think of being involved with adult entertainment might be warranted. Or, at the very least...steering clear of the exposure of free sites/link lists. I mention link lists because most (myself included) will not trade links with whois protected domains.

Myself, I look in the mirror every morning with a smile. I'm proud of what I do and hide it from no one...online or off. If they can't deal with it...that's their problem. Whoever decided sex and adult entertainment were bad things was a fucktard.

[Surfn]

Originally Posted by MrYum

Well, UW certainly represents a pretty good cross section of link list owners views as he's been reviewing sites for quite some time. Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and to express those opinions. HOWEVER, don't be surprised when those that have been around a while point out that a subject has been hashed and re-hashed and RE-HASHED AGAIN...at length. Board search is indeed a wonderful thing.

As to driving people away, that's entirely possible...and they were people that needed to be driven away too

Sorry Tigermom...you're doing to need a bit thicker skin if his post offended you that much.

Back to the subject at hand...yes, I do indeed decline sites based on private or bogus whois information. As Greenie himself so eloquently put it (paraphrasing here...too lazy to grab the text), "Would you do business in the offline world with someone who didn't want you to have any of their information?" and "This is a business and should be treated as such".

That said, I have been known to make exceptions...many reviewers will not...period! I specifically didn't check a recent new submitter because he was recommended by someone I respect. I did indeed check your whois Tigermom and chose to ignore the issue since you appeared to be genuine and trying hard. Again, there are many that do not make exceptions and I certainly understand why...as I'm getting closer and closer to that myself.

You have NO idea the stuff we review every day. Not whining...it goes with the turf. But, there are reasons we do the checks we do on submitters...and no, I won't specifically go into what those checks are...that would make it too easy for the scammers. YES, the scammers DO make it harder for everyone...NO, it's not fair! Welcome to the world of the adult internet...it IS the way it IS...and we deal with things as best we can...that's the truth.

Frankly, if you're in a position in life that you cannot have real information in your whois...perhaps a re-think of being involved with adult entertainment might be warranted. Or, at the very least...steering clear of the exposure of free sites/link lists. I mention link lists because most (myself included) will not trade links with whois protected domains.

Myself, I look in the mirror every morning with a smile. I'm proud of what I do and hide it from no one...online or off. If they can't deal with it...that's their problem. Whoever decided sex and adult entertainment were bad things was a fucktard.

That pretty much sums it up here too

[tigermom]

Originally Posted by MrYum

Well, UW certainly represents a pretty good cross section of link list owners views as he's been reviewing sites for quite some time. Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and to express those opinions. HOWEVER, don't be surprised when those that have been around a while point out that a subject has been hashed and re-hashed and RE-HASHED AGAIN...at length. Board search is indeed a wonderful thing.

I get that, that's not the issue. The issue I had was with "I guess it's a good thing that the majority of us don't personally care about what you frown upon." Not with the majority of LL's agreeing to the no private WhoIs rule. I didn't like the style, the content I actually aprreciated.

[Toby]

Originally Posted by tigermom

...I didn't like the style, the content I actually aprreciated.

UW simply calls a spade a spade, and his "style" can take a little getting used to. My Grandfather was much the same, so it didn't take any adjustment for me. Far too often such brutal honesty is necessary to drive a point home.

[tigermom]

Whatever, I just hope UW stays off my warpath when I have PMS lol. Again, I don't mind his views one bit, and I do realize it reflects more than his personal views too. I knew as much about TGP's too btw, and it was one reason why I stayed away from TGP's. I have to say, from my own experience so far in the past 3 weeks, no major LL rejects on the grounds of private Whois info. And seeing that Scorpiolinks might be an exception, I will gladly stop submitting to them. As I said, will save both me and UW some valuable time.

[Xeno]

I was discussing this topic with a friend of mine who is also in the business and what it really comes down to is:

1. LL's or others, will have their rules to follow (as long as they post them all)
2. Everyone is entitled to their opinions
3. Everyone will run their own business as they see fit
4. It's all just how the industry is and will continue to change w/more difficulty
5. Newbies entering the biz will have a harder time than others did before
6. Watch for sponsors to begin their own form of LL's putting others out of business (speculation)
7. Sometimes peeps have to get tough with the bad apples...and there are some out there
8. There are those who will burn themselves in the end while others advance
9. Business smarts & Customer service: build for yourself & the surfer in mind only.


As for the whois? Well, think about the many who do keep it public but enter in false identity info. Try that for size hey....I already know many who do that. Anyways, its 5:07 am here and I need to get to bed...I really need a vacation after working 7 years without a real one so far ...lol...

[glowlite]

Originally Posted by Useless Warrior

I've had a server in the past where I had to use my own nameservers, but as stated above, you should pick only one domain for that purpose. There is no solid reason that I know of to set up your DNS records so that every domain appears to be a NS. I know why cheaters do that, but honest webmasters definately should not.

I guess you're speaking about LLs only. It's a very common practice in the rest of the business world for various legitimate reasons. The fact that you personally know of "no solid reason" has little to do with choosing NS names.

[Useless]

Originally Posted by tigermom

Now, UW, am I to understand that you reject sites at Scorpiolinks based on private Whois? if so kindly let us know and mention it in your rules. Will save us both time

I was a temporary reviewer for Scorpio months and months ago while Swedguy was busy with another job. But while I was reviewer, yes I would decline based on that reason. Fortunately, one hardly ever stumbles upon an experienced free site submitter who hides their whois.

Originally Posted by glowlite

I guess you're speaking about LLs only. It's a very common practice in the rest of the business world for various legitimate reasons. The fact that you personally know of "no solid reason" has little to do with choosing NS names.

Do you have a point or do you want to start an arguement? And what the fuck to do you think we're talking about in this thread? The entire scope of all forms of online business, or free sites and link lists?

For the record, I like NetGoonie. I was merely surprised that he doesn't see the trouble caused by protected/hidden whois, but that is his perogative.

[glowlite]

1) No, I don't want to start an argument. I don't see you as being much of a challenge so it wouldn't be much fun. You're too easily upset and that's when your communication skills take a nose dive.

2) I think the fucking thread is about fucking "Banned for bogus whois" which is the way it is fucking titled. Since every fucking post has been about the fucking subject in the fucking title I think I know what the fucking thread is about. Am I fucking right or am I fucking wrong? Fuck.

3) I like NetGoonie also, he always tries to do what's best for all concerned. He's an active member of this board and is a directory/link list owner. His opinion counts. LINK

4) The only thing in a whois record of any value is the Registrant email address. The person who has access to that email addy has control of the domain. ICANN and the Registrar need the blanks filled in whether real or not. There are 1000's of domains registered to J.Doe, Elmer Fudd, etc of 123 Anystreet

[RawAlex]

glowlite, without trying to explain why, the arrangement that gilbery has been using is one of those things that screams "fraud" to a link site owner. The NS information is a useful information that can be combined with other items to give us an idea who is going to screw us over by pulling sites, redirecting surfers, or worse.

If you haven't had to "pre-screen" sites for scammers, you wouldn't really understand all the things that get looked for.

Now, having said all that, Gilbert has a partner account with me and I still list his stuff as it is because regardless of some of the other things, I feel that his intentions aren't bad and I make a value judgement based on it. However, others have chosen the other way. Are the wrong? I don't know... everything has been fine for me.

A fake or hidden whois is not a good thing to do.

Alex

[glowlite]

Yes RawAlex, we have many sites (mainstream) with user access directories. I can't give you an exact # off the top of my head but easily more than half of the subs are deleted. For many of the same or similar reasons that plague a LL I'm sure.

We use to install free guestbooks for our clients if they wanted. But no longer do it due to those same reasons. It is usually, not always, people on the opposite side of the globe causing the problem. They use directories and gbooks for a testing grounds for cloaking tests, ping tests, tracer route detection, script hacking practice, etc.

I can only guess that people serious about marketing would establish and use a biz address. That, to me anyway, makes more sense than fake or proxied whois info and provides a security barrier. It's also a clear message to those with whom you do business that you have good, and serious, business intentions.

That being said, I would never use my home address for registration. I wouldn't have said that 3-4 yrs ago. Why place you or your family in what could potentialy be harm's way if it could be easily avoided?

I had a lady in central Florida wake up (last March) to find some dipshit from Alabama parked at the end of her driveway. She has her pic on her retail site and she's an attractive late 30's woman. The encounter proved to be harmless and of good intent. He found her addy via whois.

I hope I don't piss off UW too bad.
He usually says all the right things, but he could stand to work on his salesmanship a little.

[RawAlex]

glowlite, it isn't difficult (or expensive) to rent a PO box and put your site there. You understand that for purposes of 2257, you need to have a valid business address where you actually work? If you work from home, and you are a primary producer, you need to publish that address (yes, the government's intention is to scare individual cam girl / solo girls out of the business by giving the stalkers an easy way to find them... but they will never admit it).

A PO box is a nice simple way to make your domain registration records unrelatable to yourself directly.

What link sites (and TGPs) do is sort of a weird kind of profiling where we know certain things are signs that could lead to problems, so when we see those things, the little flags go up and we say no. There are hundreds of little things that can lead us to see more. Dishonest webmasters are like icebergs, only a very little part of them is actually floating on the surface where you can see it.

Alex

[glowlite]

I'm not clear about your primary producer statement. You mean a pp working from home has to publish his/her physical address to be compliant?

I always recommend the PO box solution to people RawAlex.