Link O'Rama Rule Changes (yipee)

[Carrie]

I'm happy that you're finally allowing 1024-width sites. I've been on here asking/debating that before, saying the LLs are demanding bigger pics but keeping us throttled to 800x600 displays in spite of the overwhelming majority of surfers being at 1024x768 or higher.

For those of you who are saying "it's only 2 more pics"... umm, no... it's 4 more pics. That's a 20% increase in the free porn you're giving to the surfer. Still seem like "not so much"?
(Btw not many seem to marry the "it's only 2 more pics" with the words "per gallery".)

It's actually funny to see the other LL owners jumping on the bandwagon. I think if Greenie said "you must fart while submitting", pretty soon most of the LLs would have that rule as well! *wink*

The no pics on html rule... well I guess the reasoning for this is less pages to check, but really, taking away advertising space is purposely hurting us. Additional pics, additional size all equal up to more bandwidth to please your surfers, but we can't advertise as much. Would you reconsider that rule?

[Useless]

Originally Posted by Carrie

For those of you who are saying "it's only 2 more pics"... umm, no... it's 4 more pics. That's a 20% increase in the free porn you're giving to the surfer. Still seem like "not so much"?
(Btw not many seem to marry the "it's only 2 more pics" with the words "per gallery".)

Are you saying that we are stupid or deciptive? Get over it. It's done.

Originally Posted by Carrie

It's actually funny to see the other LL owners jumping on the bandwagon. I think if Greenie said "you must fart while submitting", pretty soon most of the LLs would have that rule as well! *wink*

You won't see my rules change. I may agree with the Green One's changes and the reasoning behind them, but that doesn't mean that I think they're so grand that I wish to institute them myself. In fact, I'm going to open my admin right now and reject a couple of sites in protest of GG's rules. Then I'm going to reject 10 or so more due to you implying that we are all sheep. Baaaah, right back at ya.

Originally Posted by Carrie

The no pics on html rule... well I guess the reasoning for this is less pages to check, but really, taking away advertising space is purposely hurting us. Additional pics, additional size all equal up to more bandwidth to please your surfers, but we can't advertise as much. Would you reconsider that rule?

Most link lists haven't allowed full sized pics on their own HTML pages in quite awhile. And yes, it is meant to intentionally hurt the submitter. List owners sit around conspiring against free site builders on a fucking daily basis.

Must be nice and quiet under that rock.

[Fonz]

Originally Posted by Useless Warrior

Most link lists haven't allowed full sized pics on their own HTML pages in quite awhile. And yes, it is meant to intentionally hurt the submitter. List owners sit around conspiring against free site builders on a fucking daily basis.

You weren't supposed to make this public!!! DAMN IT!

Oh yeah and those 4 pics extra are really hurting our bizz, I'm going to introduce the 1 page with 1 link and no pics freesite!! Boy am I going to get rich

[Greenguy]

Originally Posted by Carrie

...For those of you who are saying "it's only 2 more pics"... umm, no... it's 4 more pics. That's a 20% increase in the free porn you're giving to the surfer. Still seem like "not so much"?
(Btw not many seem to marry the "it's only 2 more pics" with the words "per gallery".)...

Well, a 10% increase to 22 total & 11 per page would just be silly - who makes galleries with 11 pics?

Originally Posted by Carrie

...It's actually funny to see the other LL owners jumping on the bandwagon. I think if Greenie said "you must fart while submitting", pretty soon most of the LLs would have that rule as well! *wink*...

It honestly never even crossed my mind that others would follow suit until Fonz joked about it after I posted. Let's all remember that if you build sites that fit at 800 & follow the rest of the rules, you'll still get listed at most places. Plus, with a little testing, you can build sites that have tables set to 100% that still fit at 800 (but please, test them out & make sure they look decent before you submit them)

Originally Posted by Carrie

...The no pics on html rule... well I guess the reasoning for this is less pages to check, but really, taking away advertising space is purposely hurting us. Additional pics, additional size all equal up to more bandwidth to please your surfers, but we can't advertise as much. Would you reconsider that rule?

I got rid of this rule because I can honestly not remember the last time I had a site submitted that had pics on html pages. It seemed like it was a useless rule.

Originally Posted by LB

...My question is ... does this count for sponsor hosted freesites aswell? We have a tidy little collection of them in for Titanbucks and just want to know if we will need to go through and update them all?...

Any site that's listed with a date prior to August 21 2006 will not have the new rules applied to it EVER! MML will still be checking all the sites by hand from time to time, but only sites listed after Monday will be re-reviewed with the new rules.

...and everyone knows that LL's bend the rules for HFS's from time to time

[LB]

Any site that's listed with a date prior to August 21 2006 will not have the new rules applied to it EVER! MML will still be checking all the sites by hand from time to time, but only sites listed after Monday will be re-reviewed with the new rules.

...and everyone knows that LL's bend the rules for HFS's from time to time

Thanks for the answer

I think we will redo them anyhow so they are in line with the new rule sets.

[Greenguy]

Originally Posted by LB

...I think we will redo them anyhow so they are in line with the new rule sets.

I'd like to go on record by saying that I do not encourage or expect people to go thru their old sites & adjust them to fit the new rules.

Seems there's threads on 3 other boards about this (Netpond, Medium Pimpin & a 3rd that's in a language that 99.44% of my surfers don't speak) Please do not go by anything that is posted as fact or hearsay in those threads, as I really don't want to go from board to board explaining things, especially the existence of unofficial rules

[Fonz]

Originally Posted by Greenie

Seems there's threads on 3 other boards about this (Netpond, Medium Pimpin & a 3rd that's in a language that 99.44% of my surfers don't speak) Please do not go by anything that is posted as fact or hearsay in those threads, as I really don't want to go from board to board explaining things, especially the existence of unofficial rules

Just read the other threads, it seems like the sky is falling again
|skyfall|

[Jim]

Originally Posted by Greenie

Seems there's threads on 3 other boards about this (Netpond, Medium Pimpin & a 3rd that's in a language that 99.44% of my surfers don't speak) Please do not go by anything that is posted as fact or hearsay in those threads, as I really don't want to go from board to board explaining things, especially the existence of unofficial rules

I noticed that unofficial rules post
I talked to you the day you decided on the new rules and nothing was being done before you posted them.

But, what can you expect? By now, everyone should know that you do what you do to make the surfers come back over and over. And, if it doesn't work out for you, you change the rules back.

But, according to most posts, you are going to be the downfall of free sites

[Carrie]

Originally Posted by Greenie

I got rid of this rule because I can honestly not remember the last time I had a site submitted that had pics on html pages. It seemed like it was a useless rule.[/size]

That makes sense. Although, not really a reason to disallow it just because no one's using it

Virgo - I know some sites do accept pics on HTML, and it was nice that GG was always one of the bigger "holdouts" on allowing that. Sad to see it go. Never said I was the only one who brought up the screen size, just that I'd asked about it before (and had always gotten poo-poo'd for it, btw).

UW - I'm not implying that people are either stupid or deceptive. I'm simply pointing out that while 4 more pics doesn't *sound* like much, it's actually a 20% increase. When you think about it that way, it gives you a more concrete idea of what this change means. For one site? No biggee. Think about it in broader terms- folks who submit freesites daily will be increasing their total free porn output 20% across the board. That's a significant increase, and it's something to consider.
The rock comment was cute. Childish, but cute. There is life outside of GG&J, in case you hadn't checked lately.

[Useless]

Originally Posted by Carrie

There is life outside of GG&J, in case you hadn't checked lately.

Ya think?

[Mr. Blue]

Originally Posted by Carrie

Think about it in broader terms- folks who submit freesites daily will be increasing their total free porn output 20% across the board. That's a significant increase, and it's something to consider.
The rock comment was cute. Childish, but cute. There is life outside of GG&J, in case you hadn't checked lately.

Most people that build freesites also build galleries...they use two galleries they submit to tgps to build a freesite. To get listed on most tgps you should go with around 15 pics per gallery (some allow less, but almost none allow under 12 pics unless you manage to find an old ghost town TGP2 site that someone forgot to shutdown).

Many people are already building freesites with more content then GG is requiring now. So, I'm not actually sure why this 20% thing is such a big thing for you.

[Cleo]

Originally Posted by Mr. Blue

Most people that build freesites also build galleries...they use two galleries they submit to tgps to build a freesite. To get listed on most tgps you should go with around 15 pics per gallery (some allow less, but almost none allow under 12 pics unless you manage to find an old ghost town TGP2 site that someone forgot to shutdown).

Many people are already building freesites with more content then GG is requiring now. So, I'm not actually sure why this 20% thing is such a big thing for you.

Yeah I've been doing this for years. Using 15 pics also allows me to be more creative with ad layout.

For what it's worth I've updated my LL rules as well.

[JustRobert]

Originally Posted by Fonz

Oh yeah and those 4 pics extra are really hurting our bizz, I'm going to introduce the 1 page with 1 link and no pics freesite!! Boy am I going to get rich

Can I submit 2 sites a day

[virgohippy]

Originally Posted by Carrie

I'm happy that you're finally allowing 1024-width sites. I've been on here asking/debating that before, saying the LLs are demanding bigger pics but keeping us throttled to 800x600 displays in spite of the overwhelming majority of surfers being at 1024x768 or higher.

You make it seem like you're the only one who's posed this issue before.

Originally Posted by Carrie

It's actually funny to see the other LL owners jumping on the bandwagon. I think if Greenie said "you must fart while submitting", pretty soon most of the LLs would have that rule as well! *wink*

Actually, a few other LL owners have been more than ready to implement changes similar to what Greenie outlined. In fact, a few already have. Greenie isn't the first. He's just, argueably, the most well known.

[virgohippy]

Missed this point...

Originally Posted by Carrie

The no pics on html rule... well I guess the reasoning for this is less pages to check, but really, taking away advertising space is purposely hurting us. Additional pics, additional size all equal up to more bandwidth to please your surfers, but we can't advertise as much. Would you reconsider that rule?

I imagine not accepting sites because there just isn't enough time in the day to check them is even more harmful to submitters.

And FYI, some sites DO accept pic pages. If you're that concerned about it, group your recips by who does and build 'em.