New free site format (version 1.5)

[murray]

I have an idea, lets get rid of gallery pages and add more spammy shit recip links over 2 warning pages.

[jds]

Originally Posted by Useless Warrior

Know-nothings?

Who the fuck are you? I hope you fall into a bucket of AIDS and die a slow, miserable death, you idiotic cunt-faced nobody. May your tiny cock leak burning puss and your eyeballs bleed acid, you worthless shit. YOU BRING NOTHING TO THE GODDAMNED TABLE

You misunderstood my words.

I meant "Nothing is gonna happen because of this thread", I surely know who has much more experience than I do, you are for sure one of them.

And please stop speaking dirty to me, we don't know each other, I don't think I deserved such disrespect at our first exchange !

[LD]

Originally Posted by murray

I have an idea, lets get rid of gallery pages and add more spammy shit recip links over 2 warning pages.

LOL, when i first started I built doorway pages to sponsors signup page. Wasn't too popular with the reviewers....

[Greenguy]

Originally Posted by kit

...And for sure I do not "push" left side recips template, just because it will spidered first. If you know DOM, bloсk position in the browser window and position in html code can be totally different...

I don't know what DOM is, but I do know that 99.44% of people that create an html page like the gif example you posted would have whatever is in that left hand cell seen 1st by a spider.

Originally Posted by kit

...So, I think all of the following sites broke this rule.
http://www.link-o-rama.com/greenguy/blog_porn.htm
http://www.link-o-rama.com/galleries/

So, why don't allow FS be more flexible in their format?...

That's what you come back at me with after 5 days of debating? My blog category links to blog pages & my hosted gallery page (that's not open to submits) links to hosted galleries? You forgot all of those pesky surfer-annoying paysites that I have listed.

We're talking about Free Sites in regards to Link Lists - not blogs or gallery pages or pic posts or rate my ass or top lists or avs sites or pay sites or access with email sites or tube sites or sex toy stores or dating sites or online dvd stores or phone sex page or adult message board or webmaster resource site or anything else that my Link List may or may not link to that is not a Free Site.

You know, I was thinking: if you're that concerned with getting the surfers to the content quicker, you could just link to the gallery pages. Or the pics/vids themselves - that's an even better idea! Think of the surfer retention you have then!

PS - the C letter is this: c Not this: с

[Sergeyka]

Originally Posted by Greenie

So Sergeyka is left handed too? Just admit that you pushed that format because the SE spiders will see those links 1st.

I left handed

Sample free site 1.5 I did not

I accept firs 5 free site in my LLs :>)

Wellcome to Reality

[Greenguy]

Originally Posted by Sergeyka

I left handed

Sample free site 1.5 I did not

I accept firs 5 free site in my LLs :>)

Wellcome to Reality

Dear Sir/Madam,

Your grasp of the English language is not that good. I suggest that you take a class at your local university so that you can learn how to speak proper English. Once you have accomplished this task, please feel free to return to the board and I will be more than willing to help you.

Sincerely,
Greenguy

[Greenguy]

I did miss one thing - 5 1.5 Free Sites were accepted by Sergeyka in 5 days. The popularity of this concept is mine boggling

[Sergeyka]

My bad English - your slow death


Dear owners big thanks!

[kit]

Originally Posted by Greenie

You know, I was thinking: if you're that concerned with getting the surfers to the content quicker, you could just link to the gallery pages.

I concerning about ballance betwwen FS usabilty and value.
Last 5 years this ballance decreased and became very small.

Originally Posted by Greenie

Or the pics/vids themselves - that's an even better idea! Think of the surfer retention you have then!

This is Tube conception. Yeach page IS content (streaming video).
http://www.youporn.com got 5 million uniques daily using it. Not bad.

[Greenguy]

Originally Posted by kit

...This is Tube conception. Yeach page IS content (streaming video).
http://www.youporn.com got 5 million uniques daily using it. Not bad.

No - I'm talking about hotlinking or linking to directories of pics that have no index file or linking directly to pics/vids on sites that have no htaccess file in place.

Now THAT would make for a happy surfing experience.

Or why not just endorse good old Fusker?

[kit]

Originally Posted by Greenie

No - I'm talking about hotlinking or linking to directories of pics that have no index file or linking directly to pics/vids on sites that have no htaccess file in place.
Now THAT would make for a happy surfing experience.

The ballance between free side and monetary side of the business must be.

Tubes on the right side (each page is a video which streams in your browser), we're on left side (small, unuseful sites with bad topology). And TGP in the center. ;-)

We can stay on the left side, but surfers constantly migrate to the right side. Now when SE positions dropped, LL traffic will almost dry.

[Greenguy]

Originally Posted by kit

...Now when SE positions dropped, LL traffic will almost dry.

So your site would die if Google dropped you to the point where you could not find your domain on the 1st few pages of results for ANY keyword(s)?

[Greenguy]

For those of you that may have missed it, there's a tangent of this thread that has started up over in marc's thread - you can start to read it here:
http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/...191#post396191
But the long & short of it is very simple: Kit has invented the HUB

[borgivan]

Originally Posted by Greenie

But the long & short of it is very simple: Kit has invented the HUB

I imagine you sitting in front of your screen and chuckling with a demonic laugh at your own CLEVEREST post, thinkin it will shoot Kits head off and kill all his ideas and plans. Holy shit! I'm laughing, too !

[DangerDave]

Originally Posted by borgivan

I imagine you sitting in front of your screen and chuckling with a demonic laugh at your own CLEVEREST post, thinkin it will shoot Kits head off and kill all his ideas and plans. Holy shit! I'm laughing, too !

You have just got to love conspiracy theory bullshit...

GG is stating an opinion, and it just happens to be a fact that many of us support.. There is no anti-Kit agenda.

As many of us have pointed out.. there is nothing new in what is/has been proposed.

You can already build free sites with just about any number of recips - if they are properly presented and do not interfere with navigation.

You can already build free sites that link the galleries from the index page.

So what is new?
Re-invention is not "new".

DD

[stuveltje]

Originally Posted by borgivan

I imagine you sitting in front of your screen and chuckling with a demonic laugh at your own CLEVEREST post, thinkin it will shoot Kits head off and kill all his ideas and plans. Holy shit! I'm laughing, too !

mmm i am thinking how to understand your post (and yep i am not english or usa either), or you are being sarcastic here and you are definitly not an english person or you are an usa person and i realy need to take english lessons again ( oke i didnt say the lessons i had before did their work)...help me out here...still i think its probrably the first thing

[Linkster]

Ive just started reading this - but have something that kinda irritates me already - there has been a lot of talk about recips being required to be on the index/warning page and that is not accurate for a lot of lists - the terms I use in my rules is:

"If you link to us from the page we are linking to, do not put the link under your "enter" button.
The link back DOES NOT have to be on the 1st page, but if it is, it has to be above the enter link"

This was the reason that there is a separate "recip url" box on almost every link list software package out there - otherwise the software writers would have just left the submit form with one url.

Im not going to get into the SEO part of this conversation as a lot of bad assumptions are being made from the very start - and to try to correct someone elses interpretations of what their SE position problems are and how to fix it by using a change to something that isnt broken is not an ideal I adhere to - (i.e.) Im not gonna fuck my submitters just to try to fix something I broke

[Useless]

Originally Posted by DangerDave

There is no anti-Kit agenda.

I'm calling bullshit.

There's nothing new to the suggestions, yet there's an amazing amount of resistance to them. So what does that mean? Almost every statement Kit has made has been quoted and deliberately mis-interrupted so that the sheep will think he's a fool. No matter what anyone may think of Kit, he's no fool. I don't know how anyone reading this thread or Marc's thread couldn't see that much of this is a personal issue and nothing at all to do with business. Again, the suggestions don't deviate very far from the standard free site, but a thread created to ask which lists would accept them was treated as spam and moved.

The free sites that I want to build in the immediate future won't have a main page. There will be an index with a warning, either a table or sidebar of recips, and 2-3 galleries, each linked-to from the index by a thumb and text link. But I assume that they won't be listed by many of the bigger link lists since they aren't a traditional free site. Of course, I can't ask who would be willing to accept them in this forum, because that's apparently somehow threatening to the traditionalists.

[Useless]

Originally Posted by jds

I don't think I deserved such disrespect at our first exchange !

Neither did I, douche bag.

Originally Posted by jds

Freesite is designed to convert as is, loooking for ways to improve it is adminitting you don't know how to convert with it. Nothing more

[SheepGuy]

Originally Posted by Useless Warrior

The free sites that I want to build in the immediate future won't have a main page. There will be an index with a warning, either a table or sidebar of recips, and 2-3 galleries, each linked-to from the index by a thumb and text link. But I assume that they won't be listed by many of the bigger link lists since they aren't a traditional free site. Of course, I can't ask who would be willing to accept them in this forum, because that's apparently somehow threatening to the traditionalists.

I'll list them, but please, easy on the sheep references

[DangerDave]

Originally Posted by Useless Warrior

I'm calling bullshit.

There's nothing new to the suggestions, yet there's an amazing amount of resistance to them. So what does that mean? Almost every statement Kit has made has been quoted and deliberately mis-interrupted so that the sheep will think he's a fool. No matter what anyone may think of Kit, he's no fool. I don't know how anyone reading this thread or Marc's thread couldn't see that much of this is a personal issue and nothing at all to do with business. Again, the suggestions don't deviate very far from the standard free site, but a thread created to ask which lists would accept them was treated as spam and moved.

The free sites that I want to build in the immediate future won't have a main page. There will be an index with a warning, either a table or sidebar of recips, and 2-3 galleries, each linked-to from the index by a thumb and text link. But I assume that they won't be listed by many of the bigger link lists since they aren't a traditional free site. Of course, I can't ask who would be willing to accept them in this forum, because that's apparently somehow threatening to the traditionalists.

I call double-bullshit

If anyone else had come up with the same ideas.. they would have been treated the same... There are two points(maybe three) I have made..

1. The 'design' does not differ from what can already be done. - therefore idea = useless

2. The 'idea' was proposed as a forgone conclusion... not as a proposal for discussion. That is real cart-before-the-horse stuff.. and not conducive to movement in a common direction..

3. Change for changes sake is waste of time/moneyresources.. eg: Category recips.. everyone(bar a few of us) dived into them with no discussion or thought for the consequences... and now everyone is diving out again because they served no fucking purpose at all..( and IMO did more damage than anything else in recent years.)


Useless you seem to want to tar "us" with a certain brush.. but do you say the same things about those that rush to defend Kits position so vehemently...



The short answer is...

the original idea was flawed,
the implementation was poor,
and it's only outcome is battle between 'the sides'...

Great..

DD

[LowryBigwood]

Originally Posted by Maj. Stress

It's not really outdated, it has just been around for a long time. And it has endured because it still works.

Does it? My results may vary...

[LowryBigwood]

Also, IMHO if you standardize sites in such a way that has been described, you may make them easy targets for the search engines. Why doesn't each LL decide what they want to list instead of everyone trying to conform to one set of rules? Back in the day, this may have worked out well. I feel it's outdated now, but that's just my opinion.

[plateman]

kit and imo was treated rude from the get go on this whole change a free site topic

he is worried that when the legit tube sites start getting more wind in there sails, they will start dominating the serps, and imo they are the perfect site todo so... i will not go into why

and when the LL's start losing there se listings most of there traffic will be lost also

also there are not enough quality submitters anymore to have a strong LL FS biz model, plus the surfers are getting older now that started surfing free sites, plus it's not about how many clicks to the content, but imo free site surfers are tried of wading through unlinked thumbs, to busy main pages with hard to find gallery links and a lot of LL's still allow consoles on tour links to piss off the surfers

kit wants to believe and try to change free sites LL in hope's that they can compete with tube sites...and it just won't happen

in the future you better hope your LL holds rank in the serps to still make a few sales in the future

soon there will be all kinds of legit niche and fake tube sites floating around in the serps...and they will imo start taking your traffic, be it hubs LL tgps

when i bought some tube domains almost all the good ones were already bought up, and trust me, people have plans for them

so the moral goes in this biz i've found, instead of trying to change old stuff to compete with new stuff, you should own a bit of old and new to cover your ass

also us LL owners need to tighten our belts even tighter now, untill we find out our future, and think and invent was to generate more traffic...

lets face it this biz right now is full of a lot of uncertainty and i feel a lot of sites will go offline and a lot will give up

[Useless]

Originally Posted by DangerDave

2. The 'idea' was proposed as a forgone conclusion... not as a proposal for discussion. That is real cart-before-the-horse stuff.. and not conducive to movement in a common direction..

That's not true at all. Hell, Kit himself hadn't even decided if he was going to accept them until a couple of days later. He was looking for input, but was once again engaged in a hostile manner. The topic was brought here for input. I have no idea why anyone perceived it as anything other than that.

Originally Posted by DangerDave

3. Change for changes sake is waste of time/moneyresources..

Whose money? Whose time? If you don't see a minor amount of flexibility in design as an issue, then why not allow for it? This is my biggest point of confusion. You and GG seem to argue against it while saying it's not any different than the current free site. Then you call it a change. I've never studied quantum physics, but I'm fairly certain you can't have change in a state unchangedness. (new word) So which is it, a change, or not a change - and what exactly are we arguing about?

Originally Posted by DangerDave

Useless you seem to want to tar "us" with a certain brush.. but do you say the same things about those that rush to defend Kits position so vehemently...

I see Sergeyka and Borgivan reacting to GG's hostility. I'm not certain that they are necessarily defending Kit at much as poking at GG. I suppose I could defend him, but he's done nothing but piss me off in this thread. Also, I'm not entirely certain over what Kit's opinion is, other than link lists, and therefore submitters, are in trouble. I happen to agree with that. I don't have a huge arsenal of free sites out there, but I can't even tell you when the last time I saw a new sale came in from one of my old sites, and they used to make sales. One is better off being a gallery submitter today than a free site builder.

Originally Posted by DangerDave

and it's only outcome is battle between 'the sides'...

There was never any reason for this battle. Several of us small link list owners, who I had always assumed were respected here, were discussing the idea before GG's first post:

Originally Posted by Greenie

Kit - you are such a fucking moron that it baffles my mind how you got to where you are now (well, except that you copied an established format, but that's another story)...

That's when it went right to shit.
Oh there was also this gem:

Originally Posted by Greenie

anyone that is moronic enough to re-invent the LinkList/FreeSite concept without discussing it on this board does not belong in the business.

The entire purpose of this thread was to DISCUSS IT HERE.

And was this necessary? http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/...10&postcount=1
If the bashing is going to continue on OTB for yet another week, why would anyone bother listening? I have enough closed-mindedness in my life.


Being that I'm involving myself in yet another venture that is going to require promotion, I was really hoping to begin building free sites at the end of this month, but I'm so damn frazzled at this point, I doubt I'll even bother with them, which is regrettable since I am link list owner.