Link O'Rama Rule Changes (yipee)

[WarBot]

I dont want to argue but just for the record, I dont submit sites with tiny crappy conteont and I dont have any problems with sideways scrolling either. I build good sites with good content.

[Useless]

Originally Posted by WarBot

But just for the record, I think that if every link list said the pics couldnt be OVER 500 px on the long side there would be alot more sales for everyone.

They'd just go to TGPs. Link lists and free sites suck anyway.

This discussion just goes to show that there are different theories on what sells porn. I think surfers buy because you've got them hooked on a good thing, you think they buy because free porn sucks.

[WarBot]

I think Im getting a bad rap here and becoming the poster child for bad quality. Since you declined my partner app to whoring wives and Filthy Earls I guess you think I dont use good quality content (or my sites suck or something like that). But Ive never submitted a site with pics less than 640 on the long side and I crop and optimize my images and thumbs by hand. And the clips on my video sites are grabbed by hand to get (in my opinion) the most erotic scenes without giving away too much, not just randomly ripped and grabbed. I dont think crappy content sells. I was just saying that if all the free porn online sucked and surfers could only get the good stuff in the members area then alot more surfers would be buying memberships.

My point with the LOR new rules is that I think that giving away too much makes them less likely to buy. Which Ive already said twice and I really dont want to get flamed for beating a dead horse. GG obviously knows what he's doing and Im sure you do too. I will have to bow to experience on this one. It wouldnt be the first time (or the last) that I was wrong about something I felt strongly about.

I just dont want to get labeled as the guy that thinks crappy content sells or the guy that uses crappy content. I really dont (at least I dont think I do lol).

Cheers
WB

[Kinky]

Originally Posted by WarBot

I think Im getting a bad rap here and becoming the poster child for bad quality. Since you declined my partner app to whoring wives and Filthy Earls I guess you think I dont use good quality content (or my sites suck or something like that). But Ive never submitted a site with pics less than 640 on the long side and I crop and optimize my images and thumbs by hand. And the clips on my video sites are grabbed by hand to get (in my opinion) the most erotic scenes without giving away too much, not just randomly ripped and grabbed. I dont think crappy content sells. I was just saying that if all the free porn online sucked and surfers could only get the good stuff in the members area then alot more surfers would be buying memberships.

My point with the LOR new rules is that I think that giving away too much makes them less likely to buy. Which Ive already said twice and I really dont want to get flamed for beating a dead horse. GG obviously knows what he's doing and Im sure you do too. I will have to bow to experience on this one. It wouldnt be the first time (or the last) that I was wrong about something I felt strongly about.

I just dont want to get labeled as the guy that thinks crappy content sells or the guy that uses crappy content. I really dont (at least I dont think I do lol).

Cheers
WB

I don't think UW is calling you out personally WB, he is just a cocksucker

and you are right, if all the free porn sucked, which most of it used to, then it would be better, but your competition is already using the high quality tactics to get more sales

and it is good to hear that you do that with your content, lots of people are still just slapping up 10 pics real quick with whatever content they have laying around

[Useless]

Originally Posted by WarBot

I think Im getting a bad rap here and becoming the poster child for bad quality. Since you declined my partner app to whoring wives and Filthy Earls I guess you think I dont use good quality content (or my sites suck or something like that).

We're both arguing a moot point anyway, so don't worry about being labeled. We could swap opinions and it wouldn't matter. I've been labeled plenty of things on this board, and though I don't sleep well at night, it has nothing to do with the labels.

I don't recall your application and I don't store them for future reference, so I can't tell you why it was rejected. Many times, the samples submitted are just a small part the process for me. I check whois, scan your domain(s), and check this board to see what sort of intelligence I can gather on you. It may have been due to the fact that you are new to the free site game. I like to keep my daily link acceptance rate as close to 100% as possible, so I tend to accept only seasoned submitters or people that I've interacted well with on this board and have therefore gained confidence in. I prefer to be selective so I can open up the review admin in the morning, peek at the sites quickly, and click "accept" all down the line. It's a mix of quality assurance and utter laziness really. Being rejected once doesn't mean that you can't reapply later.

[Preacher]

Originally Posted by Useless Warrior

I don't recall your application and I don't store them for future reference, so I can't tell you why it was rejected...blah, blah, blah...

Warbot submitted his first few free-sites with a protected whois, that is the reason Usless rejected your app, nothing personal. My guess is you got a lot of rejections during that period from other linklists. I'm a pushover with board members, until they cross me, then I banish their soulds to Hell.

Besides, Useless is a cocksucker, who cares about his opinions!

[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.

[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.

[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.

[WarBot]

I guess the point that really hit home with me is when someone said (Im too lazy to look and see who) that link lists have to compete with tgp's. Its 1 click to get to the free porn compared to... more than 1 (Now Im too lazy to count). The only way to compete is with higher quality. Link lists get alot of search engine traffic, and I think alot of it is eventually lost to tgp's. This will help to prevent that. So I think its going to be better for everyone. Link lists will keep more bookmarkers, free site builders will have the benefit of the extra traffic to their sites.

I finally get it.

[virgohippy]

Originally Posted by WarBot

I guess the point that really hit home with me is when someone said

I elaborated on just that, but I wasn't the only one who pointed it out. I think for a lot of people here it was a generally understood thing.

Originally Posted by WarBot

I finally get it.

I think the other board members sensed you would. Tis why there is no harm in open and honest dialogue.

[LB]

My personal opinion aside looks like we have a new standard and what is done is done.

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?

Cheers.

[virgohippy]

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?

Greenie says old listings will be grandfathered in. So I guess for LOR newly made sites will just need to be made accordingly.

However, freehosted sites get pulled by webmasters at various odd times, so I guess it all amounts to whether it's easier to continue to make new ones, or to adjust the old.

I think you're right in assuming a new standard will emerge (don't forget to fart whenever you submit sites ) but I wouldn't be surprised if there's a bit of tweaking before there's a stone tablet all LL owners bow down to.

[Greenguy]

Well, it is Fonz! Bigger pics to go with bigger sites that fit on bigger monitors!?!?!?!?!! WTF is wrong with me!?!?!?!?!?!

I really wish I had the next 2 things ready to be released, because now it's going to look like I'm kissing every submitters ass when I do announce them.

Or maybe I won't announce them at all - just put them into place & see who notices - because forbid people get upset with things that I think will benefit surfers & webmasters to my site

[CrazySy]

I have been following the new rules for a long time

[Useless]

Originally Posted by CrazySy

I have been following the new rules for a long time

And my point is made. CrazySy is part of a very small group I think of as elite free site builders; people who construct highly refined sites, both in appearance and salesmanship. That group has been raising the level of free site quality all along and they make "normal" free sites look slapped together. The really good free site builders won't feel encumbered by these new rules.

Again, my defense of the new rules doesn't mean that I'm adding them to my lists, but you won't ever see me declining anyone for more/bigger pics and I gave up on ridding the world of horizontal scroll months ago. Build decent sites and you'll have my love and admiration.

[WarBot]

Originally Posted by Useless Warrior

CrazySy is part of a very small group I think of as elite free site builders; people who construct highly refined sites, both in appearance and salesmanship.

(Grumble grumble at UW)

[KG Gary]

The changes get a thumbs up from me.

The only problem I can see is keeping those pic weights to a reasonable size. Apart from that issue, which I'm pretty sure won't even be an issue, this just seems a logical next step.
I've been feeling quite good about currently using 24 pics per freesite, and now everyone else will be doing it! Dammit!


Just got to go with whatever the current rules are and adapt as necessary.

[Chop Smith]

Unofficially, I am glad I do have to read 8.02+ posts per day filled with bad information from someone overdosed on Mountain Dew.