Banned for Bogus whois

[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.

[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

[swedguy]

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

If there's things on the site that doesn't add up and look suspicious or I suspect something and the domain has a private whois, then I do reject for it.

[glowlite]

Thanks for the briefing Alex. I don't know squat about 2257 other than what I'm doing was approved by my attorney 4+ months ago. I just assumed smaller primary producers used 3rd party similar to a Registered Agent capacity.

That would explain why so many of the amateur/independent I've looked at have banded together. To share resources and dilute the excessive overhead.