how long does a free site stay listed

[buttster]

I know that all LL are different but is there any kind of a set rule how long the average free site can keep getting traffic to it from a link lists traffic.

[Greenguy]

With me, assuming the site is updated every 6 months & follows the current rules, forever.

[buttster]

GG not sure what u mean by updated every 6 months. I submit free sites and never ever touch them again.

[stuveltje]

you ca nalways change sites if you stay at the rules of the lls you submitted too,i like to submit to sites who always link me forever.

[Greenguy]

Sites that have not been updated are removed 6 months after they are listed.

[buttster]

I thought the link bots would see a change of html or text and whammo u are history

[swedguy]

As long as your sites are up and aren't changed to break any rules, they're listed.

[Adult Traffic]

I thought the link bots would see a change of html or text and whammo u are history

I thought that too. Actually, I'd like to know the answer. I'm JUST now getting in to free sites and I would like to know if I should update them (as mentioned) across the board or if some sites will ban you for this.

Here is my first and second attempt at a freesite.
http://trixyteen.net/teen_sites/teen_latina_babe/index.shtml

http://teen-topenga.com/teen_sites/teen_topanga_site/index.shtml

[Greenguy]

AST - for the most part, as long as your site is still following the rules after you update it or make changes, you'll be safe.

My 6 month rule is just to make sure the sites that are listed are still be "watched" As long as it's updated in the past 6 months, you'll be safe. Hell, I saw a site in there from 2002 the other day :)

[buttster]

so lets say i submit a site called
Monster Black Mammaries
in 6 months i should go in and change out the pics

[Greenguy]

I've never told how I check if the site is "updated" and I never will :D

[buttster]

u devil u
LOL
now i am catching on

[Adult Traffic]

AST - for the most part, as long as your site is still following the rules after you update it or make changes, you'll be safe.


Ok, well, that should be pretty easy actually as long as I keep them somehow sorted out by dates on a hub.

[Useless]

I've never told how I check if the site is "updated" and I never will :D
You've said too much. |greenguy|

At Filthy Earl's Filthy Fucking Links sites are listed and randomly listed forever, which is exactly how long it will take for them to get any hits.:D

[Adult Traffic]

uh..

WHY JERK OFF WHEN YOU CAN FUCK YOUR OWN FILTHY SKANK?

Ah hahaha. Don't do that man it's not fucking nice.

I'm just getting over being sick and I had a coughing fit reading that! |clown|

[Useless]

I'm a marketing genius. :D

[Ann Omness]

We list them forever or until I get a valid "bad link" report from a visitor, or until I catch them violating rules when I conduct random "old link" reviews. I often catch people redirecting after they're listed, and then I delete all their sites from the database. It's too bad everybody can't be honest and professional about their business. In the long run, only the honest ones develop a stable income.

[Opti]

List them forever.... and personally think that is the ENTIRE point of webmasters working the freesite/linklist area.. that we make a site and submit and enjoy the link relevence from that forever.. As opposed to TGP which is all about pushing the most traffic immediately with no ling term view.

Personally I think the way people have become obsessed with Linklist traffic numbers is self defeating and submittters are better off making TGP gals than bothering with freesites if the owners plan to dump their prefectly working sites after 6 months or any period.

As far as I am aware, the main reason a linklist dumps good sites... is to "appear" bigger to new submitters and it's actually just ensuring everyone submitting will earn less over the long term.

[buttster]

how can u appear to be bigger if you are dumping sites. Not sure what you mean.

[Cleo]

My listings are forever unless the site goes no DNS or 404 or something like that.

[MadMax]

My listings are forever as well as long as the site stays live :)

[Opti]

how can u appear to be bigger if you are dumping sites. Not sure what you mean.

Because a site with a smaller database will send more clicks on average to each site.


Put your question in reverse... What is the motivation to remove exisitng sites other wise? To keep surfers happy?? LOL

[frankthetank]

Sites that have not been updated are removed 6 months after they are listed.

What exactly does "update" mean? Change the content or add a new gallery to the freesite?

[dareutwo]

Put your question in reverse... What is the motivation to remove exisitng sites other wise? To keep surfers happy?? LOL

Opti -
I've been keeping a close eye on this lately.
Ask nearly any LL owner that has been around for more than 6 years, and ask them when sites go 404, redirect, or change page etc...
You get 24 hours, 48 hours, 72 hours, 1 week, 30 days, 90 days.

What good is a LL free site link to a 1 or two year old site with no PR but has your recip and the other recips LL don't exist?

Any thoughts I may be missing?

[Opti]

Opti -
I've been keeping a close eye on this lately.
Ask nearly any LL owner that has been around for more than 6 years, and ask them when sites go 404, redirect, or change page etc...
You get 24 hours, 48 hours, 72 hours, 1 week, 30 days, 90 days.

What good is a LL free site link to a 1 or two year old site with no PR but has your recip and the other recips LL don't exist?

Any thoughts I may be missing?
Well that's another motivation I guess.... but it is still has the same effect... and honestly, I think your clutching at straws to try and use that as an excuse.

If a linksite can manage to monitor sites and ban them for being down 1 day due to host issues... Why do you suddenly need to blanket remove all older than 6 months as its too hard to monitor?

*edit: And if no one dropped listings after six months... the rest of us would have a lot less issues with linking to freesites that other have dropped. It hurts Everyone imho.

[Adult Traffic]

*edit: And if no one dropped listings after six months... the rest of us would have a lot less issues with linking to freesites that other have dropped. It hurts Everyone imho.

Yea, that's a fucked up deal. Having half of the recip sites drop the listing and then leach traffic from the other half still sending.

I had an issue one time: I had a deal with a really large site to send me perm gallery traffic in exchange for a recip on the page with 2 other big sites doing the same thing.

Well, I gave him a text file of the galleries and waited. And e-mailed. And waited.

Well, I pulled his recip after some time, all along, he was getting traffic from me and the other 2 sites.

A month and 1/2 after that he came to me and asked where his recip was.

I didn't have a problem giving him a piece of my mind regardless how big he was or who he thought he was in the TGP game.

He was just another cheater that got sent down the road after stealing traffic IMO.

AST

[Greenguy]

I can't help but think a lot of this is directed at me :D

http://web.archive.org/web/20000418033121/http://www.link-o-rama.com/greenguy/removed.htm

The rule has been in place for almost FIVE years. Update the site within 6 months or it gets removed. Don't like that rule, don't submit.

[Adult Traffic]

I can't help but think a lot of this is directed at me :D
Um, no. I guess I don't see that.

I read it to be sites dropping listings of a certain age so that the ones that are fresh submitted get more traffic and give the illusion the site is more 'worthy' to submit to and privide that recip.

And sites just dropping listings over a certain age withour regard to any other factors other than a date in the past.

Doing that across the board is bullshit if for no other reason than what I had stated, that they get to leach traffic through no fault of anyone.

[Adult Traffic]

God damn.

I went to GG to see what's listed and how I compare..

The first link I clicked on made me have to shut down my computer, LOL. I guess my clean sites will be OK then :)

[Opti]

I can't help but think a lot of this is directed at me :D

http://web.archive.org/web/20000418033121/http://www.link-o-rama.com/greenguy/removed.htm

The rule has been in place for almost FIVE years. Update the site within 6 months or it gets removed. Don't like that rule, don't submit.

Well, obviously it applies to you... but my comment was directed at you least of anyone that does it.

I recall a thread when you talked about it with Tommy, and then started doing it.. and I was critical at the time.. When Jay posted he was doing it.. I explained why I thought it was bad too. BUT in both those cases (and Tommy) there is some justification for it in terms of link management and a belief your bookmark surfers will stay more loyal if they dont keep running across the same sites in your list. BUT I still think you guys are gaining advantage at all regular LinkLists expense... and are definitely hurting the linklist biz as a whole by doing it.

I am firmly behind the notion that I will run my own site exactly how I like.. and so can anyone else, so this isn't meant to say anyone is bad or not... just that in reality submitters thinking a LinkList is better or worse based purely on traffic numbers is generally wrong.... and that the more linklists there are that decide to drop good sites after 6 months.. the less "power" our system has overall..

I believe most of us are only successful, and stayed unbeatable in the engines becasue of the power we gave each other.. the more LinkLists that have a mindset that they dont want to link to "useless" freesites.. so I'll drop them and who cares what anyone else does.. the faster we all will dissapear.. in fact I think It's already happening.

Surfn's post also perfectly illustrates the problem for me as a linklist operator. If I take a site with my recip on a page with Link-O-Rama and Jays and Tommy's... in 6 months time I am Going To Be Penalised for the dangling link left on my site!

Does anyone else that does it want to put forward some positive reason for doing it?

[ronnie]

Long as they stay valid, I dont take them down.

ronnie

[Kezza]

Well said Opti!

We list all free sites forever as long as they remain valid, clean and within the rules.

Perhaps a smart free site submitter would be putting all the link lists that will drop their site after 6 months on the same recip table? Just a thought. :)

[Greenguy]

Let's remember that I do not remove ALL sites after 6 months, just those that have not been "updated"

A little work & a quick FTP 5 months after you built the site would solve this problem :D

(and I shudder to think of the amount of sites I'd have listed if I didn't do this - LOL)

[Linkster]

Thats the funny part about GGs site that has always made me wonder about people that submit in this biz - back when I made my living basically from submitting free sites, I kept a spreadsheet of every free site I made, and made sure that after 5 months it got "updated" - always seemed like an insignificant thing to do to make sure I kept my listings alive :)

[stuveltje]

when i had my linksites (ex linksite owner now, but soon again an linksite owner) i removed all the isites which where a year in my linksites, easy reason, i dont want my linksites to big because i wont be able to give them the traffic, so removing the sites after a year out of my database was the solution, i have mention that on the submit page and also that they could resubmit. :D

[Head Boy]

Another interesting thread.

So if I get a free site listed on a bunch of LLs, and in 3 months time a couple of them drop the listings, can I remove their recips without getting canned by the others?

[Opti]

Let's remember that I do not remove ALL sites after 6 months, just those that have not been "updated"

A little work & a quick FTP 5 months after you built the site would solve this problem :D

(and I shudder to think of the amount of sites I'd have listed if I didn't do this - LOL)

I actually don't mind that system the more I think about it.. good way to ensure good people keep getting the benefit whilst weeding out the rest.. but I really do believe 6 months is too short a time to list sites that are trying to build a linklist empire... updated or not.

I Really was not reffering to you as the "problem"... It's the many other sites that drop freesites now that is the worry for me.. I suspect many of these webmasters only do it because they have seen you or Jay doing it, and think that makes it fine.. But hardly anyone else, apart from you, has the "unmanageable numbers" reason..

For example.. over the last 5 years I have received almost 100,000 site submissions at We Love Free Porn.. that's more than 50 sites per day average... which I am pretty sure would be more than than most site's have received over that time. I was always very easy with the rules for regular submitters, and now have 48,187 sites in the database.. Which is close to the upper limit I think my site can stand on it's traffic.. But it is manageable.

New linklist sites do this mainly in reaction to submitters constantly comparing hit numbers from LinkLists.. creating a desire among owners to send more clicks to new sites, at the expense of long term linking which is the whole reason freesite builders have to justify the extra effort they go to imho... seems like a catch22 to me.. Why bother with freesites if people are building today for sales tommorrow, TGP gals are much more effective for that strategy.

Anyway, not trying to be obnoxious to anyone that does drop sites.. hopefully a few will read this and think "shit, I never thought of that angle" more than anything.

Maybe those of us that Don't Drop sites should start mentioning it prominenty on our submit pages.. as a way to encourage more people to run their sites along the lines of what I would call a "genuine linklist model".

|peace|

[Linkster]

I am one in the camp of pretty much keeping everyones sites listed - however - with the number of sites that I started with (over 2000) that I stole from other LLs and wrote my own descriptions for - those are starting to go away, as well as of course the redirecting and 404s,etc type sites that we find every day.
Another criteria I use is since we hand check all links on a regular basis, and constantly find sites that have pulled recips or changed their code to screw surfers - and our reaction is to pull all sites submitted by that submitter - we can usually stay within the traffic numbers we want to send and the number of sites that are still a benefit to the surfers to promote bookmarking and more friendly sales for the submitters.

[Linkster]

Headboy - I had to think about what you said - I dont think that pulling recips really gains anything for you in the long run as that is a lot of work to go back and check - I also dont think that any linklist would pull a link after 3 months without a really good reason unless its one LL that does it more frequently, but his traffic is so productive, I am more than happy to leave his recip for the amount of money I make during those times the site is listed. I really dont have enough time in the day to go back and even check to see if one LL that I submit to even listed the sites let alone go back 3 months later and worry about the 1 hit a day I might be giving that LL.

[spacemanspiff]

There's another way to look at this. I don't drop sites so it doesn't apply to me, so don't think I'm trying to sell you a bill of goods, but here it is:

Say you like to submit sites to GG (or any other link list) because you know his pages are well positioned in the search engines for some very targeted keyphrases. You really like getting all that SE traffic from him. Why would you want to remove a link on a old ass site that you made six months ago that could be helping GG get those rankings, and helping you get that traffic.

If you need a reason to not waste hours and hours checking all your old sites, there it is.

[Head Boy]

Thanks for the comments - I guess I'm still thinking TGP galleries. :)

You've probably guessed that I haven't yet put together a free site for submission.

[stuveltje]

i still check my old sites ones in awhile and i love it that after more then 3 years i still get traffic from RR and Gg and others..............mmmmmmmm now i realy sound stupid, i submit my sites to the ones who list me forever and i myself removed the site after an year listing...........well its isnt stupid its smart thinking:D dont you dare to say something else, i am nuts and a nuthead is always right |horse| |tomato|

[Greenguy]

Actually, my rule has nothing to do with traffic back or PR or anything - it was simply an attempt to keep the number of links down. There's over 12,000 listed now & I'd really like it to be around 5000, but kicking out 7000 links for no good reason would piss even more people off :D

[dareutwo]

Originally, and still valid.. the number of links per page has to do with load time.
There are Dial Up users, remember them??? They've paid you for years now.
3 banners and an html page of 300k looking for free porn??? I don't think so.

[dareutwo]

Build it, submit it, and forget it.
Oh wait, that's so 90's. LMAO

[stuveltje]

oke kill me and i dont ass kiss,i am agreeing with gg, 5000 links a linksite was my goal i did that with netmaniak and analbitch and realy with my next linksites i do the same, maybe a linksite with archive i dont know but i realy dont want big linksites...also i removed about 200 bad links a month at netmaniak that time, my view is a linksite with 5000 links will do good fresh and clean and i can send the traffic. and wil be better for ses....and bite me if you dont agree :D

[stuveltje]

Build it, submit it, and forget it.
Oh wait, that's so 90's. LMAOi build but realy dont forget :D

[Head Boy]

Could you have a procedure where each six months worth of links could be stored on a sub-domain. That could speed up processing for the later entries, but keep access for the older entries.

[Opti]

Build it, submit it, and forget it.
Oh wait, that's so 90's. LMAO

Actually.. that's SO what we tell site builders to do now... Or am I wrong? Do people that build sites daily, reading this thread, not think that is the basic system? Build it and forget it.

I think you are way out of touch Mark.. You actually sound exactly like the type of "problem" linklist webmaster I had in mind with that attitude.

Originally, and still valid.. the number of links per page has to do with load time.
There are Dial Up users, remember them??? They've paid you for years now.
3 banners and an html page of 300k looking for free porn??? I don't think so.
I'm not sure why you think page sizes or dial up users have ANY relevence to this issue... Again you sound like you're clutching at straws for any excuse rather than the factual one... It's better for you so you don't care what happens to any other site, or how it may affect the linklist biz as a whole. I am sure there is some people not ashamed to say they think that is an OK attitude.. but you are just making excuses to either kid us or yourself now.

How many dial-up users do you imagine are in found in each 100 paysite signups? Have you ever looked at your own traffic to check this? Do you even have a clue how to determine who is what, may be a better question!

You were saying your reason for dumping sites was not wanting to leave yourself listing dangling links first up! Now you want to say it's dial-up users or something?!? |clown|

[dareutwo]

Opti - I respect you, though on this issue I think we simply disagree.
You run yours, I'll run mine, and there has never been a LL "ours".
Let's leave it at that.

Buttster asked a question.
Now they're more confused than when they posted. :(

btw - Marks has does not remove listings.
If you wish to carry this on privately fine... I'm easy to reach.

[Opti]

Opti - I respect you, though on this issue I think we simply disagree.
You run yours, I'll run mine, and there has never been a LL "ours".
Let's leave it at that.

Buttster asked a question.
Now they're more confused than when they posted. :(

btw - Marks has does not remove listings.
If you wish to carry this on privately fine... I'm easy to reach.

|thumb sorry to sound as confrontational as I did ;-)

This thread has inspired a possible solution now!! Something that sounds so simple yet so smart, I'm blown away none of us are already doing it that I know of... It's not for me to describe yet, but the idea sounds like it will be easy for any linklist to implement and will help everyone that runs or submits to linklists in a big way... I am convinced it will help make sure we can't be hammered so hard by all the spammers targetting our linklist domains too.

Not being cryptic.. hopefully the person I've been speaking with about it and I will have it tested and ready to share with everyone quite quickly.