Blacklist gripes

[codymc12]

Let me say ahead of time that I don't mean for this post to offend anyone... but I do have a gripe.

I've been a webmaster for 6+ years on the adult web. I run my wife's paysite (Mona's Place), and I do most of the promotion. I pretty much promote our site only, when it comes to free sites and tgp stuff.

In that 6+ years of time, I have never added popups, redirected a site, etc. We buy content that's not crap, and whether or not they are the most imaginative, I build clean sites that don't try and trick the surfer. I build them by hand, and endeavor to not make them TOO similar, including making logos and buttons quite often.

Despite this - my email is on the ban list for 'templating' and so are a number of our domains. And I have to say, it's discouraging.

Here's an example of sites on a banned domain:

http://www.touchyourmonkey.com/babeshave/
http://www.touchyourmonkey.com/blondetatas/
http://www.touchyourmonkey.com/hotpussy/

Sure, not the Mona Lisa. But they're clean, I NEVER change my sites. Never, never, never. I have free sites that I built 6 years ago, and they sit on their respective domain(s) and either get traffic or gather dust.

I run a linksite as well, and I am swamped with morons submitting multiple sites under different identities, hiding their enter links, using the same content every DAY, etc, etc, etc. In a day and age when more and more link lists are having to battle this BS, I would think that an ethical webmaster who doesn't use a script to build his sites, and doesn't try and cheat the lists would have some value.

About a year and a half ago, our income just dived. Crashola. Turned out that all of our sites had been removed from a prominent link list. Why? Templating. I got it removed, and proceeded to build EVERY site we submitted with hand designed graphics and logos. Banned again.

This will probably fall on deaf ears, and as I said, I don't mean to offend anyone -but I think linklist owners might want to review this practice a little. I'm not saying my sh*t doesn't stink, but damn - I've been an ethical submitter, trying to turn an honest buck, and I feel continually penalized.

Anyway, just wanted to get my 2 cents in.

Cody

[Cleo]

This
http://www.touchyourmonkey.com/blondetatas/
http://www.touchyourmonkey.com/hotpussy/
Why is one page a different color then the rest?

All of them look like they came out of a script that generates sites or something like that.

[Greenguy]

Looking at all three of those site, I'd say they are all from the same template, just slight variations.

[jennym]

The pages that are a different color are full page ads. That may cause you huge problems getting listed. I don't mind a full page ad, but those are too long, and look like clickable thumbs. As for the template look, some people are just less creative than others. This comes off in their work. If I see you are trying to make it look different, then I won't penalize you for that.

As for the blacklist, I don't use a "shared" blacklist. I only blacklist those that piss ME off. So, if you want to change the FPA, (you could just unlink the pics, and change up the text that says "CLICK HERE TO SEE MORE PICS LIKE THIS!". In other words, make sure it LOOKS like an ad) feel free to submit the sites to me.

[codymc12]

Cleo,

Those two links are from submits to LL's that accept FPA's. The different colored page each has is an FPA.

Re: them looking like they are script generated - I feel that's entirely a matter of opinion. They were made by me, by hand, in Dreamweaver/Photoshop. No script stuff at all.

One of the periods I got my email banned in, I did the following sites:

http://www.daily-porn.net/babewife/
http://www.hotsexythumbs.com/toyspussy/

I actually purchased software to assist me in making logos and buttons so that I could keep myself from getting banned.

I should add that I've never had any difficulty getting listed at Cleo's, and I don't want to start having difficulty now, so... no offense meant.

And my post isn't some slam on LL's or their owners in general. I realize what we're dealing with is sheer volume. Making it hard to differentiate.

The truth is, though, my sites aren't generated by a script, I don't cheat, I don't reuse content, I don't use overused sponsor content, etc. But I still get banned. And I go through link lists, and I see sites that, to be honest, don't look like they're breaking the originality barrier either, which means it's opinion based. I think templates should be held to mean templates. I was venting on it, and I think it's something that needs some reform.

Sure, I recognize it's not likely to happen - but rather than fume about it, it was worth a post.

[Greenguy]

codymc12 - swapping out images but still using the same table structure is defined as "using the same template"

All the gallery pages on each of those sites look damn near exactly the same.

You have to build a galery page & the put it in a folder &use it again in about a month, Then start from scratch & build a completely new gallery page, use it & then put it aside as well.

Reviewers get realy sick of looking at the same sites with different colors over & over & over & over.....

[codymc12]

GG - I appreciate you weighing in. I see where you're going on this - the structure of the sites is the same. Eg, where ads are placed, in relation to gallery one gallery two, etc.

That's the only thing I can see being called 'templating'. My question is - how far do we take it? I mean, the structure of a free site is pretty much a given thing. You have a warning page, and you have pages that lead to content. I can move the links to the gallery pages up or down, move the ads around, change the spacing of the tables for displaying the pics- but in the end, the structure remains the same.

Shouldn't the true test be content? Whether or not the surfer can reach that content without being misled? And whether or not the webmaster is honest in his dealings with the link list? I'm guessing the answer to that is no, and maybe that's one of the great gaps of disagreement.

I think the surfer is looking for the fastest way to the pics, generally, and paying less attention to whether or not the gallery button is on the top or middle of the page this time as compared to his or her last visit. I think what pisses off the surfer is not how many times you have used the same warning text, but misleading enter links, redirects, pop ups, crappy content.

My view is, if you honestly just don't like the look of my site, don't list me. But geez - ban me and remove every site I've ever made? I just can't get my head around that. That seems like serious over penalization for honest webmasters.

[Greenguy]

You can vary things a lot, especially on the galleries - I have over 30 different gallery templates, each one has spots for 16 pics. I can easily change them to 14 or 12 or 10 pics & change the look of each one.

You can just have 3 pics, 3 pics, 3 pics, ad, 3 pics, 3 pics
OR
3 pics, 3 pics, ad, 3 pics, 3 pics, 3 pics

It's not gonna cut it

Surfers are gonna see it too - especially with the cumshot sites - if the surfer sees your site & thinks to himself that he's already seen it, back he goes to the link list & on to another site.

[codymc12]

Originally posted by Greenguy
You can vary things a lot, especially on the galleries - I have over 30 different gallery templates, each one has spots for 16 pics. I can easily change them to 14 or 12 or 10 pics & change the look of each one.

You can just have 3 pics, 3 pics, 3 pics, ad, 3 pics, 3 pics
OR
3 pics, 3 pics, ad, 3 pics, 3 pics, 3 pics

It's not gonna cut it

GG - thanks again for the reply. I have to go help my kid with her homework, so I gotta go, but... I do see your points, and I think I was overintellectualizing what my real point of contention is. I didn't actually see it till I re-read my last post.

I can understand someone not listing my site because they think it's too much like others, and I need to be more original. But not only banning me from submitting permanently, but also removing years worth of submitted sites that HAD been priorly accepted? That seems pretty steep on the penalty side. I mean - those sites were accepted before, they were never changed, and now they are GONE?

I don't think that the 'penalty fits the crime' there. I'm basically treated the same as a cheating webmaster who went back and 404 redirected all of his sites to pop up hells. That just ain't right. There should be some point of differentiation. Hell - I'd even swallow being banned till I got my act together - but retroactively removing every site that was ever accepted seems unjust.

This happened to us, and I found out about it when investigating why our signups suddenly cut in half. Months and months of submissions the reviewers had no problem with and had accepted were gone. That's not a good system, IMO.

Again, my intent is not hostility. It's concern, and this remains one of the few truly biz oriented boards out there, so it seemed relevant to me. Thanks again for the time and replies.

[Greenguy]

Yeah, that does seem a bit harsh & I may have to rethink that when we find someone with a large number of sites that are already listed.

But I think you need to address something else - if 1/2 your income was coming from links off my site - JUST ONE SITE- then you really need to adjust your marketing a bit. That may sound harsh, but you know what they say about having all your eggs in one basket.

What if I found God? Sold the site? Died?

Tommy once told me that I should never have more than 10% of my income from any one source & even though at the time I didn't take his advice, I'm wishing I did when ARS changed.

[codymc12]

Homework is done.

GG - thanks for at least taking a look at that particular point. This was helpful (this thread) in terms of boiling down to what was really bothering me. I review sites, and I hate templates... that wasn't really my problem.

Regarding half income coming from your site, eggs in the basket, etc - no I don't think you're being harsh. First of all, I'm not laying that at link-o-rama's door. Our destiny is our responsibility. And to be honest, I wasn't just referring to the GG linklist, or trying to single it out on this topic.

We actually had about 5 different income sources. One of the ones we built our site on, years ago, was AVS. We also got sites listed in the Yahoo directory, did TGP, MGP, started our own linklist, and even did some paid advertising on Consumption Junction. We'd also expanded our SEO efforts. We didn't get hit in just one area, but a few. AVS and SE changes were a big one. We had 1000's of sites with Adult Check. In general, there was what I call a 'tightening of the belt' on traffic sources. Even though we actually didn't have all of our eggs in one basket - some of those eggs dissapeared entirely and the rest simply became a bit less productive. So - shrug - we didn't adapt fast enough.

We are still here, albeit smaller, and working to survive and build things back up. I will say, it's a bit harder these days than it was 6 years ago.

[Greenguy]

I'll make a deal with you....if you promise that you're going to make & use some different templates, I'll take you off the blacklist so you can start to submit again

Just tell me what domains/emails that are listed as "active" over here:
http://bl.usefulscripts.com/blocked/
and I'll yank them out

Send me a PM if you feel more comfortable (instead of posting all the domains here on the board)

[codymc12]

Thanks - a lot. PM sent.

I've decided I'm going to stick with this board. Biz oriented, real help - I miss a good community board like in the old days. Maybe this is the one.

[Ann Omness]

Personally, I like the consistency of templated sites when I'm reviewing submissions. As soon as the site comes up, I know where to look for my recip and I know where the ENTER link is. Saves me a lot of time. If a visitor thinks they've already seen the site and clicks back, well, that only hurts the webmaster who made the site, not me. It's my own opinion that surfers like templated sites for the same reason I do - they're easier to navigate because they're familiar.

I have to confess to wondering if other links list owners ban templated sites just to slow the webmasters down. I've never gotten a complaint from a visitor about templated sites on the list.

If you're going to use templates though, you really should take a couple of weeks and just design a good assortment of templates to cycle through. A lot of webmasters just use the default templates that come with the script, so we end up with 50 different webmasters submitting sites that look almost identical because they all bought the same script.

[RawAlex]

Ann, my job is to keep my surfers entertained and in the mood for porn. If they click links and say "I saw that site yesterday", then I have failed to entertain them.

it isn't hard to develop a number of templates and use them in rotation, to avoid that exact problem. Most people make the mistake of making one template and using it to death in a week. Variety is the spice of life!

Alex

[Tommy]

hey Cody how are you and mona

if anyone has any doubts about cody,
Ill vouch for him

and by vouching for him I am just saying hes trustable.
His templete problems and other fpa stuff are another issue :-)

[codymc12]

Tommy,

Thanks, man. Mona and I are good, thanks for asking. Been a tough year or so, but we're no shrinking violets, and we're getting things under control.

Yes, I do seem to have a mental block re: templates and so on. I got some helpful pointers from GG, and I'm working to correct my brain on this subject.

Definately going to make this the board I come to. Along those lines, once I get touchyourmonkey squared away (it's been spammed to death lately with bad submits), I'll try and make it very accessible to those who frequent this board. It's no Link O Rama or Tommy's, but it actually gets a fair amount of SE traffic, and those here seem earnest and honest - my favorite people to work with.

Cody