Join price in link texts?

[Licker4U]

Originally Posted by Lemmy

A statement that something costs money, that you'll have to whip out the CC to get access to the goodies, pretty much "un-blinds" any link to me even if the site name isn't specifically mentioned. "Get access to all her pics for only $3.95" works just fine.

Originally Posted by Preacher

I agree 100%

If it costs them something, it costs them something... To me it doesn't matter where it costs them something.

I guess that's what I was referring to when Dare mentioned Billy Bob. As long as Billy Bob has pictures that the surfer expects to get, in this case, the girls pics after pulling out the CC, it shouldn't matter exactly which site the surfer winds up at. Like I said, might just be semantics, different folk, different strokes.

[KG Gary]

Trouble is, it's almost impossible to group all the link lists which would consider that one a blind link together in one recip table.
Is the inclusion of the paysite name in every outbound link enough of a problem to face some declines at some link lists?


I'd love to be let loose without the restrictions of strict blind link rules, but while there's a chance of declines from enough link lists, and even though it's gets very repetitive typing at "paysite name", the rejections aren't worth the risk, imho.

[Licker4U]

I was hoping this thread would soften some hearts...

[ladydesigner]

Originally Posted by Lemmy

All this said, I tend to play it safe with my own sites. I always include such terms as "Get Full Access to...:, "Click Here For a FREE Tour" or "CLICK TO JOIN" etc. etc. while including the paysite name either in the link itself or in supporting text.

That's exactly what I do with my own free sites so I guess I had just adopted that as a rule when reviewing for my link lists. I decline some really nice sites for what I call "blind links". I guess I'll defer to all this peer pressure and go a little easier on what I reject text links for.

[ladydesigner]

Originally Posted by Licker4U

I was hoping this thread would soften some hearts...

Consider mine softened (somewhat)!

[Licker4U]

Originally Posted by ladydesigner

Consider mine softened (somewhat)!

WOOOHOOO Now all we have to work on is that "all pages in the same folder" thing. By the way, what's the reason for that? I know of maybe two others that require that.

[ladydesigner]

Originally Posted by Licker4U

WOOOHOOO Now all we have to work on is that "all pages in the same folder" thing. By the way, what's the reason for that? I know of maybe two others that require that.

Oh lord! Don't go there with me Licker4U! LOL!

I feel (and always have) that if all html isn't in the same folder, it's just plain sneaky business going on. I don't understand why if you're going to mirror a site (like we all do) that all the html (index, main, gal 1 and gal 2) can't be in the same folder! Those 4 html pages are seriously not going to take up so much space that your host has some kind of attack. I know that not all webmasters that put html in different folders are cheats - it's just the way I feel and I'm stickin to it!

[Licker4U]

Originally Posted by ladydesigner

I feel (and always have) that if all html isn't in the same folder, it's just plain sneaky business going on.

What's sneaky about it? The only reason I'm asking is 'cause I don't know.