New free site format (version 1.5)

[Greenguy]

Last Activity: Today 12:34 PM
Viewing Thread New free site format (version 1.5) @ 12:34 PM

Kit's here

[stuveltje]

wahhh i am gonna bann this thread out of my reviewers head, you can do what you want as a free site submitter, you can do what you wanna list as an linksite owner, but the linksites who have me as an reviewer wont agree with those new rules.....NO WAY (stu--->>talked with her bosses about this thread and show them all and they refuse to deal with a new invented wheel, old rules will stay on the list, no matter what google or whatever ses does) oh and this also counds for the ones i know for years in this biss submitting free sites, its your choise to make those sites but dont submit them at the list i do, i made already exceptions for you guys, but i wont go that far to list free sites made on these news rules, no matter how many years i know you, nothing personal...just keeping by our own rules!

[Mateusz]

Originally Posted by Greenie

I'd also like to go on record & state that I like "Hairless Chest Mateusz" much better

I almost felt off the chair LOL

[stuveltje]

stu<-- see it like this....you free site submitter make a nice surfer friendly free site by the rules of the linksite you submit too......in return....the linksite owner you submit too gives you traffic back but also want some clicks to his site too and get bookmarkers because you made that friendly surfer site, easy to navigate...the surfer dont wanna get overwelhemd( or how the hell you write that) by tons of links, and making the surfer to confused what to click......i wonder in this thread what is more important...to keep your bookmakers with nice easy to navigate good sites, or do you only depend on your ses results...my guys (my bosses) yeah know i am bad here, but they relay on their bookmarkers...they dealed with the ses before, they know how ses can fuck them ( and most linksite owners know how ses can fuck up), but they also believe on their bookmarkers and these new rules wont help to make more bookmarkers, it only make it worser, how the hell a surfer can make a pick between what 40 linksites receips? oh i know where the benefit is....sure the smaller linksites who wanna get listed with the big ones, because tell me....name me 40 linksites who give alot of traffic like tommy , richard, dd, gg etc? But you dont need a tons of traffic to make a sale, your a sales man or not, if 2 or 3 adds a page dont give you a sale then 4 wont work either and tons of traffic also not......you as a free site submitter have it all in your own hands.......and yes tell me i am an moron and then i will say, i dont fucking care, i do know what i am talking about (oke if i am talking in my own language, hell learn dutch sometime)

[Greenguy]

Last Activity: Today 02:41 PM
Replying to Thread New free site format (version 1.5) @ 02:41 PM

2 hours later, Kit hit the reply button & he's currently almost 20 minutes into his typing

[Greenguy]

Kit is 50 minutes into his reply. It must be nice to start a fire on Friday & not check on it until Monday

[Greenguy]

1 hour 15 minutes - this had better be a doozy!

[swedguy]

For some reason I've always thought kit was a girl.

[DangerDave]

What I want to know now is...

Why is there a rush to take up this so-called new version??

Do the people wanting to build and list them.. think that it will be a global panacea for the Free Site business?
What exactly is going to change?
Are you going to make more money?
Are you going to make less money?

Change for changes sake has been proven time and again to be nothing but a waste of resources.. and the sensible and correct way to go about any change that may or may not be deemed necessary, is to HAVE THE DISCUSSION FIRST, not AFTER the format has been decided...

Kit and others may have had a little less opposition and alot more input if the question had been asked.. "How about we look at FS design and see what we can come up with?"

At present - as I have said before - 'people' are just seizing hold of this new idea for reasons that I cannot see or understand.. Less mirror entrances is one thing I suppose... but you have always been able to do that of you own volition.

As my mother would say.. "If Kit told you to jump of the Harbour Bridge would you do that too?"

DD

[stuveltje]

Originally Posted by DangerDave

As my mother would say.. "If Kit told you to jump of the Harbour Bridge would you do that too?"

DD

dont say that, thats something my parents use to say to me, and i am saying to my kids, but then my moron daugther will answer "YES"......yes yes i admit, i have strange kids

[Greenguy]

I'd just like to thank Kit for this big mess he's created.

Thanks for starting the thread. Thanks for coming back & reading it & keeping up-to-date (I know you read it Saturday, Sunday & today) Thanks for being a coward & not posting. Thanks for not backing up your statements. Thanks for not being clear with your intentions. Thanks for re-inventing the wheel with another wheel.

Thanks for nothing

[murray]

Originally Posted by Greenie

I'd just like to thank Kit for this big mess he's created.

Its another cold war

[kit]

Originally Posted by Greenie

What would these 1.5 sites do in reality?
1 - eliminate the warning page - something that Free Sites & Link Lists were BUILT on. Way back in time, sites like mine & al4a linked to the same type of sites/pages. Somewhere in there, sites like al4a started to link right to the gallery pages & sites like mine started to link to warning pages only. I am NOT saying that I invented any of this, but somewhere in there, TGP & Link Lists were created. The warning page is a massive portion of the Link List & Free Site foundation.

Difficult and not clear access to the picture and video content - one of the reason, why bookmarkers drop our stone age LL and go to the TGP or Tubes.
Come one, let's try to make 10 pages between surfer and content. You think you will maximize your profit and traffic?

Originally Posted by Greenie

2 - adding more recips - can anyone tell me the rule of thumb for the number of recip links you can put on a warning page? Anyone? Bueller? Frye? The answer is: no one knows We've all seen warning pages with 6 recips that look like Gov Patterson placed them on the page & we've all seen sites with 20-30 recips that looked just lovely. Do I think that the rule of thumb should be 40+ recips? No. But for fuck sakes, the left hand cell (ie: the 1st coding the SE spider reads) should not be filled with 40+ blind links!

Soon


Kit? Comment?

I suppose, better do not limit the recips number at all. Just don't mention it in the submit rules. BTW, I have no such limitations.

[kit]

Originally Posted by HarryM

It could look ok if you didn't have to link to category pages aswell.
Some examples: 1, 2, 3

I like #2 and #3 templates much more than #1.
May be suggest a rule "one link to the one LL" on new sites format?

To all, who concerns about 40, 80, 120 outgoing links: Look at the blogs you listed today (if any). There is tons of links there.

[kit]

Greenie, looks like you don't like me.
Can you tell me why? ;-)

[kit]

Originally Posted by Floyd

So as to not hijack CrazySy's thread I'm going to ask over here.. what does everyone think of THIS SITE I've taken some of the ideas brought up here and tried to keep it within the basic link list rules... would anyone list it?

I would (but reviewers don't know about it yet)

[kit]

Originally Posted by KG Gary

Also, Kit hasn't been back to state how flexible, (or not), he's going to be with his proposed changes, so it's difficult to know how to react.
A split between link list owners over this issue will be a huge inconvenience for freesite builders.
Build two versions of the same site, or drop a load of excellent free traffic?

I would like to accept new free sites format and accept classic free sites for sure. Submitters will decide themselves, what is more profitable for them.

[mb]

Please see the hoes.com response to this topic here:
http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/...ad.php?t=46326

thanks,
marc

[kit]

Originally Posted by artwilliams

2 Questions:

1. How do the proposed changes make it more friendly to Google?
2. Doesn't the fact the the surfer must click three times to find the porn increase the webmaster's chance of a sale?

Inquiring minds want to know!

1) I hope, there is less FS mirrors will burn. There is no reason to link to 40 links sites and make at least less mirrors. 1.5 format is more classic 1.0 format than future 2.0 format, but I don't ready to discuss the 2.0 FS conception. GG will ban me. ;-)

2. Very good question. In fact yes, longer session is cause of more sales. (we actually force surfer click to the couple links before content.) Another thing is a usability ballance. Today classic FS is abolutely worse for 99% surfers and they go to the TGP and than to the Tubes. 5 years ago, classic FS was like a small piece of gold, 10 years ago it was like a diamond. 15 years ago one porn page built in the totally dark garage (PK, LOR, etc.) made their owners rich.
Time changes and nowaday surfers drop us and go to the much more usable sites. Lets simplify FS and make it more usable for the surfers? Yes, the number of the possible sales contacts will decreased, but bookmarkers will stay on LL.

[papagmp]

Originally Posted by Floyd

So as to not hijack CrazySy's thread I'm going to ask over here.. what does everyone think of THIS SITE I've taken some of the ideas brought up here and tried to keep it within the basic link list rules... would anyone list it?

I'd list it in a hearbeat!

[Ms Naughty]

I'm a bit late to all this, just wanted to add my 2c

With regards to increasing the number of recips: as a submitter that sounds fab as it would reduce effort but it has SEO implications:
http://www.google.com/support/webmas...n&answer=35769
"If the site map is larger than 100 or so links, you may want to break the site map into separate pages."
I think most people take this to mean that you shouldn't have more than 100 links on any given page. If your recips all have two links (main and category) then your site begins to sail very close to the wind if you've submitted to 40 linklists.

On a general note, I welcome a discussion about the freesite format as I must admit it has become rather rigid. Removing the warning page, however, does feel like you're losing an opportunity to sell.

My own small linklists have happily listed all kinds of sites. Today, for example, I listed this one, which isn't a "free site" in the LL sense of the word.
http://scandalouswomen.com/
But it's definitely worth listing because it's useful to a surfer.

So if someone was to submit one of these 1.5 things to me, I wouldn't be too concerned, as long as it was a quality site.

[balls_deep]

No one may care what I think but... If we list these sites we are loosing clicks no matter how you look at it. Do you want to give the surfer easy access to get off or do you want to make money?

Our current model works no matter how outdated it is;.

[Maj. Stress]

Originally Posted by balls_deep

Our current model works no matter how outdated it is;.

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

Anyone remember when coca-cola changed formulas to taste more like pepsi when they started to lose market share? It took them exactly 3 months to figure out they actually had a faithful following that disappeared just as fast as the old coca-cola vanished from the shelves.

The same principal could apply here.

[tigermom]

Quite the thread here, a nice mix of drama and business

Haven't been submitting for quite a few weeks now (way too busy with other projects and life in general), but I still consider myself "a submitter", so here's my 2 cents.

Yes, I think the freesite model could use some fresh ideas and thinking. No, I don't think the 1.5 model as kit outlines it addresses the core issues that I'd like to see addressed.

I would like to see more room for creativity. I'd like to see more flexibility rather than sticking to the usual 4 pages format. More specifically -

1. I'd like to see room for freesites that have more than one type of content. A mix of stories, pics and movies.

2. I'd like to see room for freesites with more galleries and fewer pics/movies per gallery.

3. I'd like to be able to have more than 3 outgoing links on a gallery page, or on any page for that matter. I'm not talking about banner farms or even link farms with some content at the bottom of the page. I'm talking about being able to highlight words in the text (in positions and context where they won't be blind links) and have some more leeway with text links, while retaining 3 blocks of ads per page (3 blocks but not 3 links).

4. I'd like to see freesites where some of the pages can have full-sized images and/or embedded flash movies rather than thumbnails.

5. Last but not least, I'd love to see more flexibility in recirocal linking. Could be links back from the root of the domain or from a links page in the FS, but not necessarily on the main or index page. If that links page was linked to from every page on the FS, for example, it may get just as much link juice and traffic as a table on the index page, and it would mean we don't do direct reciprocals either. Just a thought, and we might be able to come up with more creative ways.

I think as a surfer, I would have liked to see linklists that truly link to good quality free sites and not just freesites.

When I started in adult web publishing, I didn't even know there was a difference. I heard people mention they were making freesites and assumed there was some missing space there and they meant "free sites", i.e. sites where some amount of free porn is provided in order to lure the surfers into the paid sites.

I've only been doing adult for about two years, and I can only imagine how the FS format evolved (though I'd love to get educated there!). I guess the strict format evolved as a result of webmasters trying to spam LL's with banner farms and sites full of more links and spam than actual content.

I won't even say "as a linklist owner", because I don't consider XLEF.com to be a linklist in that sense. It's a directory to me, because it lists much more than the regular format of freesites. Anything which I feel to be of value to surfers, while not giving away too much free porn, will get listed, and recips don't even have to come from the site itself.

Which brings me to the last point - trusted submitters. I don't even have a submit page, I only take submissions via PM or emails from people I know from the board. My point being, that thinking about the amount of spam and junk the big LL's have to deal with makes me shudder. Having to review sites that don't even have a fixed format would have to be a total nightmare. So maybe the flexibility in formats should be limited to trusted submitters only?

And can't do without some samples So here are some sites which are free sites but not freesites and I would list them (well, ok, they're mine, but I hope it gets the point across).

Black Sluts

Hottie Wives

[Ms Naughty]

Wow Tigermom, you just said everything I wanted to say. Bravo.

Speaking as a submitter (albeit a lapsed one who is thinking about doing it again soon), your list is spot on. And as a small linklist owner, I wouldn't have a problem with those suggestions (although I must admit, it's not like I'm swamped with spammy submissions... or many submissions at all LOL).

Can the owners of existing large linklists accommodate these suggestions from trusted submitters? Do they do it anyway?