Link O'Rama Rule Changes (yipee)

[MrYum]

Originally Posted by Greenie

I've been watching the numbers over the last 2 weeks & I can honestly say that I am listing more sites per day & declining less & less, which is exactly what I was hoping for

That's good stuff...congrats Greenie

[tigermom]

Is there still room in the pot for my measly 2 cents?

Just wanted to add that on gay LL's the rules demand much much more free porn. I'm talking mins of 60 pictures for a Freesite and even more. I haven't tried building and submitting such sites, but I have been told by fellow WM's in the gay market that these FS sell just as well, if not better. Why? no idea. My point being that who knows, maybe more free samples doesn't cost you sales after all?

[Greenguy]

I have noticed a lot of gay sites that have 4 gallery pages - I assumed it was a trend with people that live & work next to each other & share server space & account codes

[kenny]

Originally Posted by Bill

I don't like it because I think it sends a subliminal signal to the surfers that we are more desperate for their eyeballs, and that our content, all content, is therefore worth less.

I've never had any problem with the 800 standard, and I don't care about it one way or the other.

But upping picture size and number devalues all of our work, without in any significant way adding to anybodies business, neither linklists nor builders.

It will just lead to another size 'arms race' as everybody tries to position themselves to their best advantage - in the end we are back exactly where we started, but with a devalued product.

But what can you do? Not much. Devaluation of our business is presumably inevitable.

Thats exactly how it works. TGPs have proven this historically

[kenny]

Not that it will trigger a new size "arms race" but 1200 will now become the new standard.

Everybody will insure that their photos are 1200 rule for link lists that require it. In the process every link lists will end up with bigger thumbs.

There are still TGPs out there that require only 10 thumbs. You are not going to find any galleries listed there with only 10 thumbs because the bigger TGPs all require more.

[Greenguy]

sleeper - What does the size of the pics have to do with the size of them thumbs?

[kenny]

Originally Posted by Greenie

sleeper - What does the size of the pics have to do with the size of them thumbs?

I was doing 20 things at once and worded it wrong.

Here is what I meant to say:

"Not that it will trigger a new size "arms race" but 1200 will now become the new standard.

Everybody will insure that their photos will pass the 1200 rule for link lists that require it. Beacuse of that every link lists will end up with size 1200+ photos

A example of this is how the number of images on TGP galleries has escalated through time.

There are still TGPs out there that require only 10 thumbs. You are not going to find any galleries listed there with only 10 thumbs because the bigger TGPs all require more."

[Coolegg]

Oh how I wish I had come across this thread 36 hours ago, lol. I spent Saturday preparing 20 new sets for our affiliates at bibucks.com at 660 x 440 (=1100 for the mathematically challenged). Oh well, ce la vie. So I redid the 20 sets at 740 x 493 this morning, and they are uploaded and ready for use. It's fresh hi-quality stuff if I do say so myself.

So I hope this post doesn't sound spammy but I wanted to give all my affiliates the heads-up in case some of you are looking for "1200 compliant" content. Click below to access the sets.

If you aren't an affiliate yet, click below to sign up at bibucks.com through Greenguy's affiliate code:
http://refer.ccbill.com/cgi-bin/clic...ww.bibucks.com

- Coolegg ("the webmaster formerly known as Coolegypt")

[jmf000]

New rules won't help sell content. Only cheapskates will benefit whenever you rise free content requirements.

[DJilla]

Its hard to see (and then again not really) what the big uproar is about.

IMHO:
Been using 12, 14, 16 pics in my sites for a long while. Makes design variations easier and is probably better for surfers anyways.

1200 wide issue I can see problematic for some because it is true that most (a lot) sponsor content comes 640. I suspect that this is exactly the purpose of the rule: to lessen overused sponsor content and increase purchased, unique content. Gotta be a good thing.

More than 800px wide; well I think this just allows more sloppy designs but time will tell.

I guess I'm thinking most about Jim's comment on his pet peeve about "Its my list and I can do what I want" feelings. I would say that for 95% of the people this would be true.... but not for you guys.

Of course you can do what you want, that goes without saying but I think its no surprise of all the hand wringing these little changes cause every now and then because you handful of guys (and women) are the literal tail that wags the dog. Everything you do is seen and perceived as important and affecting the entire business model up and down the line just because you are the gorrillas, in traffic, reputation, and influence. Therefore, when you make a decision like rule and standards change you are really making a rule likely to apply accross the board at least in time. You have the enviable (maybe uneviable) position of affecting a lot of peoples actions and has its been said "change is scary" to some. Ultimately you are making a decision based on what you think is best for the list and maybe for the business but at the level of an LOR its also a decision for the niche of all serious freesite workers.

I don't have a problem with any of the rule changes either and agree with the general precept of "its my list...." but maybe significant rule changes could be announced well in advance here at the board and then such a big deal wouldn't follow.

[Greenguy]

Originally Posted by DJilla

...I don't have a problem with any of the rule changes either and agree with the general precept of "its my list...." but maybe significant rule changes could be announced well in advance here at the board and then such a big deal wouldn't follow.

A week's notice wasn't enough?

Just a side note: I still get about the same number of submits (it's up a bit in the last few weeks) and I've been listing MORE sites each day since I put this rule into place. I don't think I lost a lot of submitters & since things have been steady since I put the rule into place 5 weeks ago, things are rolling along rather nicely & I'm happy with the submits & the listings.

[Fonz]

Yes, but why the 24 pics rule?

[DJilla]

Originally Posted by Greenie

A week's notice wasn't enough?

You know reading the early post just now I saw the weeks advance notice. I was originally thinking a month, but now after even more thought its clear that no amount of advance time would make a difference, you'd still have a ton of people agree and disagree, bitch, moan, and congratulate. We can all only trust in your greater wisdom and pulse on the biz and follow you and the other really successful WMs lead happily. I know I do.

But for the record, I'm still going to allow the 640 pics so all you that have old sites laying around submit them to ME,me, me, me, MEEEEE!

[jmf000]

Originally Posted by Greenie

Just a side note: I still get about the same number of submits (it's up a bit in the last few weeks) and I've been listing MORE sites each day since I put this rule into place. I don't think I lost a lot of submitters & since things have been steady since I put the rule into place 5 weeks ago, things are rolling along rather nicely & I'm happy with the submits & the listings.

From the first posts it made me believe that G.G. was loosing visitors who demanded more and larger pics for free.