Link O'Rama Rule Changes (yipee)

[Greenguy]

This place is to fargin small.......

I've just put some BIG rule changes into place for the Link O'Rama & when I say BIG, I mean size |thumb

You can read all the rules over here (http://www.link-o-rama.com/greenguy/therules.htm), but in a nutshell:
24 pic minimum (12/gallery)
1200 pixels for the combined width & height of images
no pics on html pages
1024 for site width

Sites that are currently listed will be grandfathered in & these new rules will NEVER apply to them (so these no need to go back & change old sites or worry aobut them being removed)

I've got more changes in the works, including one that will make you want to put my in your suitcase & take me home - it's that much love |loveyou

[ponygirl]

24 pic minimum (12/gallery)
1200 pixels for width & height of images
well...ya, I'd say that's a big change. |thumb
I will say this - some will say "it's about time" and others will say "why'd you change that?"
I love pissing people off while making them happy at the same time :D
I wonder what the pissed off:happy ratio is right now :D

going back to recut all my pics on the new freesite I'm building....

[docholly]

This place is to fargin small.......

I've just put some BIG rule changes into place for the Link O'Rama & when I say BIG, I mean size |thumb

You can read all the rules over here (http://www.link-o-rama.com/greenguy/therules.htm), but in a nutshell:
24 pic minimum (12/gallery)
1200 pixels for width & height of images
no pics on html pages
1024 for site width



WOW 1200 pixels..my ass shots might even fit now!! :D

May the |buddy| bless you PonyGirl

[Torn Rose]

DICK!!!!








I just wanted to be the first to say that.... well, the first in this thread.

[Preacher]

I already stated the reasons for my opinion in the good morning thread so I'll just repost my stance: Bastard! |greenguy|

The only problem I see in building future sites that comply is...I like to keep my pictures as high quality as is generally allowed (basically right below the 100k mark) and using larger pics will force more compression and therefore lower quality. Not like I'm a photo-optimization specialist or anything, and not like it will stop me from submitting...makes me think though if the page size is being rethought, maybe it's time to rethink pic weight too.

Preacher
(Not a Pot-Stirrer)

[Preacher]

P.S.

Thanks for the grandfathering. |thumb

[Greenguy]

Preacher - what size pics are you currently using?

[WarBot]

1024 x 768 is a pretty common dimension for large images, thats about 700 on the long side after resize. Hell, about 1/2 of my content sets werent even 700 on the long side when I bought em. When alot of link lists wont allow images over 80kb youre looking at alot of white backgrounds or alot of over compressed images. OR alot of smaller link lists changing their 80kb rule (also bad news for the submitters trying to make some money at this).

I think this is a very bad idea. To me, more content + larger images = less sales. With 120 seconds minimum of videos, 24 pics 700 on the long side, that doesnt leave much to the imagination or much reason for the surfer to pull out the plastic. Lots of happy surfers and bookmarkers for you, less sales for the webmasters submitting sites to you. I thought the idea was to make money, not to get the surfer off?

Just my .5 cents. I really hope that noone else adopts these new rules. I think its setting a very bad precedence.

WB

[Greenguy]

Hold on! Read the rule page 1st - the 1200 for images is the combined width & height (Good: 700 + 525 = 1225 Bad: 640 + 480 = 1120)

I guess I should have made that a bit clearer in my post :)

[Greenguy]

WarBot - so 2 more pics per page is going to cause surfers to not sign up to a paysite? Bigger pics will do this too?

You looked at a 500x375 pic lately? It's fucking tiny!

I'm here to make everyone happy - submitters, surfers & myself. To me, this is not that big of a deal.

People have bitched for the last year that 800 was too small, so I increase that as well as some other things based on that & it's a bad idea?

[Preacher]

Preacher - what size pics are you currently using?
On the set I am going to have to recut: 449x675
[Crap I had an example linked here, but I think cd34's security is preventing me from hotlinking it :D - I can ICQ or Private message you the gallery pages if you'd like to see how that size looks]

The reason they are that specific size is because I batch processed them to 75% of their original width & height because when I tested the compression on a few of them at that reduction I couldn't see any difference from the originals so it was easiest for me to batch process both the width and the compression with like values. Honestly, it won't be that hard to recut them to comply. |thumb

[Fonz]

Nice updates. Away with those tiny 500px pics.
That width and height combined rule reminds me of an old gold site rule :)

So are we all going to copy these rules now like the copycats that we are? :)

[docholly]

P.S.

Thanks for the grandfathering. |thumb

AMEN!! |thumb

and the time extention:

*NOTE*
New Rules Posted August 15 2006 (effective August 21 2006)

[ponygirl]

I don't mind those rules...I like using 24 pics anyway, you can vary your gallery designs easier that way. The 1200 is going to hurt some people I think, if the subs I see are any indication, and I agree that some pic size rules may have to change if more LLs adopt this, but you can still get under 100kb pretty easily imo.

So are we all going to copy these rules now like the copycats that we are? :)
:D lol

[Preacher]

*NOTE*
New Rules Posted August 15 2006 (effective August 21 2006)
|doh| Doh! Did not even see that. I guess I've got 2 free-sites to get submitted before Monday - hub or no hub! |thumb

[Greenguy]

On the set I am going to have to recut: 449x675...You know, I was going to put it at 640x480 but the widescreen pics throw off my 4:3 ratio rule. Then I was going to have the rule say that the minimum width or height would have to be 500, but then I thought about all the sites I'd get submitted with pics that are 500x500 :D

The 1200 total (yes Fonz - I stole it |thumb) made the most sense in my head.

[WarBot]

WarBot - so 2 more pics per page is going to cause surfers to not sign up to a paysite? Bigger pics will do this too?

You looked at a 500x375 pic lately? It's fucking tiny!

I'm here to make everyone happy - submitters, surfers & myself. To me, this is not that big of a deal.

People have bitched for the last year that 800 was too small, so I increase that as well as some other things based on that & it's a bad idea?

I agree that 500x375 is tiny. And yes, its my <u>opinion</u> that more + higher quality free content = less sales. Most of my images are 640x480 or 680x510, both are too small for link-o-rama. Im no expert and its your site, Im just offering you my thoughts.

Cheers
WB

[Nenad]

1024 for site width

|bow|
:clap: :clap:
|thumb

[gomin]

I agree that 1024 is becoming a standard nowadays, but almost all ll's won't accept anything bigger than 800 for a time.
Will you still accept 800 for site width?

[stuveltje]

bad bad GG|catfight| just teasing , nice new rules:D|thumb still means i hve to sett my screen on 1024, i will get blind again .........damn this bizz:D |jester|

[Greenguy]

...Will you still accept 800 for site width?Of course.

[stuveltje]

Of course.ah stu can keep the screen on 800|bananna|

[Itchy]

General Rules:
> - minimum of 20 pics (minimum of 10 pics/page) OR minimum 120 seconds of movies (minimum 10 sec/movie)

oops lol :)

[gomin]

ah stu can keep the screen on 800|bananna|
|thumb

[Magix]

damn most of my pics are 640 X 480 :( so it fucked up :( so i must change a sponsor :(

[Magix]

Hold on! Read the rule page 1st - the 1200 for images is the combined width & height (Good: 700 + 525 = 1225 Bad: 640 + 480 = 1120)

I guess I should have made that a bit clearer in my post :)

so you won't be accepting sites with images 640 +480 ? :( |banghead| |banghead| |banghead| |banghead| |banghead|

[Kinky]

nice! 12+ pics... bigger pics... there are thousands and thousands of surfers that instantly click out when they see a tiny lil 10 pic gallery with crappy content, happy surfers are spending surfers, good content is king |thumb

[iMan]

Progress! Onward and upward |thumb

[MrYum]

Looks good Greenie |thumb

Glad to see 800 wide is still accepted...had me worried on that one for a minute there :D

[Greenguy]

I sort of assumed that everyone would know that 800 wide would still be accepted - it's not like I was declining sites that fit at 600 last week :D

[sue-fl]

I'm just glad I have to Monday!! I have some freesites ready to submit and they don't comply with the rules. Thanks for the extra time Greenie or I'd be crying right now. |thumb

[Cleo]

1200 pixels for the combined width & height of images

Math just never was my thing. |banghead|

I'm just glad we aren't using pentacontagon shaped pics. :D

[JustRobert]

At first I had some problems with these changes, but before I started typing I took a moment and thought about the changes. After 10 minutes of my 2 brain cells fighting they came to the conclusion that this is just fine by us.

The 1200 total is a pain in the ass. Most of my images already comply with this so I do not care but why not make it 700 on the long side. Easier for those that hate math.

The 120 seconds of video I never agreed with. I believe the freeloading bastards should pay for quality/quantity videos. I do not do vids so it doesn't affect me. I prefer arousing pics.

Kind of like all the free hardcore thats out there. They should be paying for that as well. I have read that those that started in the early days blurred the hardcore parts and sales rolled in but somewhere along the way that changed and sales slowed down in the fight for traffic versus sales. Same reason the DOJ is up some peoples ass, too much free and twisted hardcore. Just my thoughts.

Can't wait to see what the next changes are :)

[MrYum]

I sort of assumed that everyone would know that 800 wide would still be accepted - it's not like I was declining sites that fit at 600 last week :D
Now Greenie...we all know what they say about 'assuming' :D

Seriously though, it's good to see some carefully thought out steps forward |thumb

[Greenguy]

...The 1200 total is a pain in the ass. Most of my images already comply with this so I do not care but why not make it 700 on the long side. Easier for those that hate math....Normal 4:3 pics will work with the 700 rule, but those wide-screen 16:9 pics would have to be 800 on one side.

I could make it 800 on one side if that makes it easier for everyone |couch|

|waves|

[Greenguy]

That last post was #18750 for me - if i was a comic book, it'd be a collector's edition :D

[JustRobert]

Normal 4:3 pics will work with the 700 rule, but those wide-screen 16:9 pics would have to be 800 on one side.

I could make it 800 on one side if that makes it easier for everyone
I did not think about the wide-screen stuff, makes more sense now.

I'm good with 800 as well, though that may make it harder for some people. :)

[frankthetank]

WarBot - so 2 more pics per page is going to cause surfers to not sign up to a paysite? Bigger pics will do this too?

You looked at a 500x375 pic lately? It's fucking tiny!

I'm here to make everyone happy - submitters, surfers & myself. To me, this is not that big of a deal.

People have bitched for the last year that 800 was too small, so I increase that as well as some other things based on that & it's a bad idea?

I don´t think two additional pics will have any influence to the signups. But on the other hand content requirements are growing steadily.

The only really bad thing coming with the 12/24 pics rule is that I can´t build freesites easily from my galleries. I´m using 20 pics for galleries and could split those pics on two freesites. Now I have to use 4 more pics, so I have to change my building process.:D

[sue-fl]

Math just never was my thing. |banghead|

I'm just glad we aren't using pentacontagon shaped pics. :D

I suck at math for real Cleo! I still don't know what size picture is to small for the new rules! Just have a feeling my average 600by450 is not going to work anymore |huh

[Bill]

I don't particularly like it, but what can you do.

[RedCherry]

Thanks! That helps me, I can do 600x600 pics for my one site that has square pics. :D I just did a site today at 650x650, and I think 1 pic ended up over 100k due to the quality. I'm not about to compress the shit out of them, lol.

And YIPPEE on the 1024! |bananna| |bananna| You can only fit so much stuff in 750, so that gives you more room for different layouts.

I'm going to change the rules on my link lists to allow up to 1024 wide. I use 1280x1024 resolution on my 2 monitors and 800 wide max sites look really small, lol.

Glad I like making 12 pic galleries for my free sites, that won't bother me at all.

[WarBot]

Now Greenie...we all know what they say about 'assuming' :D

Seriously though, it's good to see some carefully thought out steps forward |thumb

I just dont understand how giving the free porn surfer more and higher quality is somehow a good thing?

I keep asking myself, I wonder if it was Joe Smith posting this, who owns a link list that gets 30 visitors a day, how many thumbs up do you think Joe would get if he said we should give the surfers more and higher quality free porn? I think it makes a HUGE difference that its greenguy saying it.

And yes, it scares the hell out of me to post in this thread. I would hate like hell to get on Greenguys bad side (or anyone really). But I just think this is such a bad idea. Hell, I dont even do picture galleries lol.

[Greenguy]

WarBot - you're not on my bad side :)

But my advice to you is to revive the old Linklist2 concept & see if you can get that ball rolling like TGP2 is :D

Seriously - this is NOT that big of a change & if you don't like it or any of the other rules, then don't submit.

[WarBot]

I suck at math for real Cleo! I still don't know what size picture is to small for the new rules! Just have a feeling my average 600by450 is not going to work anymore |huh

If your picture is 600 x 450 thats 600 + 450 = 1050. Its just long side + short side is all. No complex formula's just addition (luckily for me too lol)

Cheers
WB

[WarBot]

WarBot - you're not on my bad side :)

But my advice to you is to revive the old Linklist2 concept & see if you can get that ball rolling like TGP2 is :D

Seriously - this is NOT that big of a change & if you don't like it or any of the other rules, then don't submit.

Now that you put it that way I like it more.

[Useless]

I was a cunt hair nervous when the original post made it sound like the pics had to be 1200px on the long side (phew), but otherwise - I'm not seeing a problem here. You shouldn't be pushing the lower size pics anyway. He or she with the better samples is going to sell more porn. Keep shoving those 500px wide pixelated pieces of shit in front of your surfers and wonder why they're not buying. Good samples will sell the site better than constantly repeating "I know my samples suck, but if you join you'll get nicer shots"

Have you people ever bought a used car? Two cars cost $3k. You take both for a test spin. All else equal, one looks like shit, one still has good paint and upholstery. The salesman tries the hard sell on the shitty one. "It'll look better after you buy it than it does now!" Yeah, sure it will. |thumb

At least the LOR has made it EASIER for you less than genius free site builders who couldn't squeeze your templates down below 750 to avoid horizontal scroll for the last 5 years. :D

[CelticTiger]

I was a cunt hair nervous when the original post made it sound like the pics had to be 1200px on the long side
You were nervous? I'm the dumbass that thought he meant both sides had to equal 1200px nothing bigger and nothing less |shocking|

[WarBot]

I dont want to argue but just for the record, I dont submit sites with tiny crappy conteont and I dont have any problems with sideways scrolling either. I build good sites with good content.

[Quotealex]

I don't particularly like it, but what can you do.
Me neither. But what can we do!

[Useless]

But just for the record, I think that if every link list said the pics couldnt be OVER 500 px on the long side there would be alot more sales for everyone.They'd just go to TGPs. Link lists and free sites suck anyway.;)

This discussion just goes to show that there are different theories on what sells porn. I think surfers buy because you've got them hooked on a good thing, you think they buy because free porn sucks. :D

[Useless]

Me neither. But what can we do!What is it exactly that you don't like? Is it the minimum pic size going up just slightly? It really is a slight increase in size. Hell, for a lot of free site builders, these new rules merely acknowledge what they've been doing all along.

[WarBot]

I think Im getting a bad rap here and becoming the poster child for bad quality. Since you declined my partner app to whoring wives and Filthy Earls I guess you think I dont use good quality content (or my sites suck or something like that). But Ive never submitted a site with pics less than 640 on the long side and I crop and optimize my images and thumbs by hand. And the clips on my video sites are grabbed by hand to get (in my opinion) the most erotic scenes without giving away too much, not just randomly ripped and grabbed. I dont think crappy content sells. I was just saying that if all the free porn online sucked and surfers could only get the good stuff in the members area then alot more surfers would be buying memberships.

My point with the LOR new rules is that I think that giving away too much makes them less likely to buy. Which Ive already said twice and I really dont want to get flamed for beating a dead horse. GG obviously knows what he's doing and Im sure you do too. I will have to bow to experience on this one. It wouldnt be the first time (or the last) that I was wrong about something I felt strongly about.

I just dont want to get labeled as the guy that thinks crappy content sells or the guy that uses crappy content. I really dont (at least I dont think I do lol).

Cheers
WB

[Quotealex]

What is it exactly that you don't like? . Both actually. I like to make my fs with the least amount of pictures as required and make them as small as possible.

[Kinky]

if you go to a grocery store and get a free sample and it tastes like shit are you going to buy some of it? hell no but if it tastes great you MIGHT buy some

if you see some free porn samples that don't get your crotch stiff or your panties wet are you gonna buy anything? probably not but if you see something that you would like to see more of you are gonna check it out more

alot of the "freeloaders" are just looking for the best quality, not neccesarily eating up all the bad content out there

surfers are on your sites to check out your samples, bad samples leads to quick click backs, if they think the sites being advertised are going to contain the same type of content as your samples they are not going to buy anything from you

[virgohippy]

I'm more than happy about dropping the 800 screen width rule!

I don't think the pic size will affect the way I do things all that much either. Means my bandwidth will go up a bit... but... eh.

Warbot, I agree that giving away free stuff makes sales harder, but think about it this way: if sites that list links to 4 page ads have to compete with sites that list TONS of free galleries, can you see where there's a need to adapt?

Personally, I'd hate to see my warning page sales dissappear because all the surfers keep graduating to TGP's. :D

Whatever's necessary to keep the LL game going forward is good by me. |thumb

I think Greenie made a careful balance here. And I, for one, take no shame in being a copycat! :D

[ponygirl]

I'm going to venture into the fray here |loony|

I do prefer bigger thumbs, simply because it pisses me off to no end to surf and see tiny little pics. I think it's a waste of a surfer's time to have to click thru to each pic to see which ones they like. I see the bigger thumbs as a preview to the bigger pic, so what's the point if they can't even make it out? One pic can make a sale if it hits the right nerve ;)

I also have stated that I think 12 thumbs makes it easier for a builder to vary their gallery templates. You can arrange 12 differently more easily than 10 imo (and from what I see as a reviewer myself).

As for the full size, well ever since Cleo upped her pic size rules I've been making them bigger too (not quite 1200 combined, but close) and to be honest, I really haven't noticed a difference in click thrus or conversions. If they're going to buy, they're going to buy because they want to & your site is the best they see advertising what they wanted anyway. You catch more flies with honey...and all that :)

but that's just my opinion. I don't think GG is going to see many people taking him out of their submit list, and if they do, well more for me :D

[Kinky]

I think Im getting a bad rap here and becoming the poster child for bad quality. Since you declined my partner app to whoring wives and Filthy Earls I guess you think I dont use good quality content (or my sites suck or something like that). But Ive never submitted a site with pics less than 640 on the long side and I crop and optimize my images and thumbs by hand. And the clips on my video sites are grabbed by hand to get (in my opinion) the most erotic scenes without giving away too much, not just randomly ripped and grabbed. I dont think crappy content sells. I was just saying that if all the free porn online sucked and surfers could only get the good stuff in the members area then alot more surfers would be buying memberships.

My point with the LOR new rules is that I think that giving away too much makes them less likely to buy. Which Ive already said twice and I really dont want to get flamed for beating a dead horse. GG obviously knows what he's doing and Im sure you do too. I will have to bow to experience on this one. It wouldnt be the first time (or the last) that I was wrong about something I felt strongly about.

I just dont want to get labeled as the guy that thinks crappy content sells or the guy that uses crappy content. I really dont (at least I dont think I do lol).

Cheers
WB

I don't think UW is calling you out personally WB, he is just a cocksucker :D |lovers|

and you are right, if all the free porn sucked, which most of it used to, then it would be better, but your competition is already using the high quality tactics to get more sales

and it is good to hear that you do that with your content, lots of people are still just slapping up 10 pics real quick with whatever content they have laying around

[JustRobert]

What is it exactly that you don't like? Is it the minimum pic size going up just slightly? It really is a slight increase in size. Hell, for a lot of free site builders, these new rules merely acknowledge what they've been doing all along.
Your exactly right. I will not say that all my sites fit in with the new rules but a high percentage do, so this is really no problem.

Useless is also correct about surfers going to tgps. All my images for them are cut at 700+ with 15 pics a page and a hell of alot more traffic than LL's have ever given. And yet with all these increases I pay less than half of what I use to for bandwidth just a couple of years ago. It really is a wash. I do not do videos because I think the surfer should pay for that. But in time I will probably have to change my thought about this as well.

No gripes on you warbot, I understand your posts are just debate and debate only not complaints. Just like mine, not complaining, just debating with those that have been in the business longer so I can understand better.

[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.

[Quotealex]

if you go to a grocery store and get a free sample and it tastes like shit are you going to buy some of it? hell no but if it tastes great you MIGHT buy some
And if you give alot of free sample every day, why would they need to buy it when they can just return to the grocery store every day and get some more free sample as they please!

[ponygirl]

And if you give alot of free sample every day, why would they need to buy it when they can just return to the grocery store every day and get some more free sample as they please!

I used to manage a store (a candy store yum yum) where there was a set amount of time each day that we had to get out and 'sample' the passersby. Yes, we had a lot of people coming back just for the free stuff, but it DID make more people buy, too. Why else do you think they do it? It's all in the way you look at it.

[Useless]

I think Im getting a bad rap here and becoming the poster child for bad quality. Since you declined my partner app to whoring wives and Filthy Earls I guess you think I dont use good quality content (or my sites suck or something like that). We're both arguing a moot point anyway, so don't worry about being labeled. We could swap opinions and it wouldn't matter. I've been labeled plenty of things on this board, and though I don't sleep well at night, it has nothing to do with the labels. :D

I don't recall your application and I don't store them for future reference, so I can't tell you why it was rejected. Many times, the samples submitted are just a small part the process for me. I check whois, scan your domain(s), and check this board to see what sort of intelligence I can gather on you. It may have been due to the fact that you are new to the free site game. I like to keep my daily link acceptance rate as close to 100% as possible, so I tend to accept only seasoned submitters or people that I've interacted well with on this board and have therefore gained confidence in. I prefer to be selective so I can open up the review admin in the morning, peek at the sites quickly, and click "accept" all down the line. It's a mix of quality assurance and utter laziness really. Being rejected once doesn't mean that you can't reapply later.

[Kinky]

And if you give alot of free sample every day, why would they need to buy it when they can just return to the grocery store every day and get some more free sample as they please!

because you cannot live off of free samples alone, you will starve to death :D and as I stated too many people are already doing it and you can't control what they are doing, you might run the risk of being left behind so to say buy the competition

I am curious though, Bill if you are in here again, to hear more of your thoughts on the subject :)

[MrYum]

This discussion just goes to show that there are different theories on what sells porn. I think surfers buy because you've got them hooked on a good thing, you think they buy because free porn sucks. :D
Thought that bore repeating |thumb

Some of the arguments here against changes like these are not unlike the old mindset of blind links and circle jerks. Throw up some crappy pics and more or less force the surfer to the paysite at all costs.

By no means saying you would do that WB, but trying to show you a different perspective on why changes like this are likely good for sales |thumb

I'd like to think we're working with a somewhat more savvy surfer in todays adult market. Todays surfer is less likely to purchase based on seeing shitty samples and being herded to a paysite for more. But, give him a taste of something of quality...something that really pushes the buttons...something that hits home...and you might just have a sale |thumb

The same can be said of paysites...the old cookie cutter paysites dont' sell like they used to. This business is changing and maturing. I really think it's time to come out of the dark corners and into the light. Using quality samples to promote quality adult products makes sense imo.

Having given it a lot of thought since Greenie went live with these changes, I'll likely be implementing some changes at FPP. That is, if I ever get these new categories added!!! |banghead|

[Useless]

Oh, btw - I don't like his wider site allowance. I honestly keep my settings at 800x600 and horizontal scroll annoys me to no end. And now I'm going to be seeing more of it! Damn that |greenguy| (http://www.link-o-rama.com)!

Who'da thunk that this would become the board's HOT thread?

[Kinky]

what are we all gonna do when Greenie starts making us build for all the people that are buying widescreen monitors and laptops which are all the rage today? I want stuff to look good on my 42" plasma monitor and my 50" HD monitor in the living room too :D


|couch|

[Preacher]

I don't recall your application and I don't store them for future reference, so I can't tell you why it was rejected...blah, blah, blah...
Warbot submitted his first few free-sites with a protected whois, that is the reason Usless rejected your app, nothing personal. My guess is you got a lot of rejections during that period from other linklists. I'm a pushover with board members, until they cross me, then I banish their soulds to Hell.

Besides, Useless is a cocksucker, who cares about his opinions! |blowjob|

[Greenguy]

Both actually. I like to make my fs with the least amount of pictures as required and make them as small as possible.Well, now that's 24 & 700x525 :D

...But Ive never submitted a site with pics less than 640 on the long side and I crop and optimize my images and thumbs by hand...I have one free site with pics of yours listed (it has 30 pics with 15/page btw :D) I was looking at the size of the pics & they are really strange. 640 x 399, 412, 373, 403. etc - why are you cropping these by hand? Regardless of my rules, if you have a batch of pics that are all 640x480, just run come compression software (thumbs Plus, CompuPic) on them if they are too big in file size. Why would you bother cropping out 50-80 pixels on one side?

...and while we're talking pics, 800x600 is a very popular size - auto-crop them (and any other 4:3 ratio pics bigger than that) all to 700x525 & you're all set!

And if you give a lot of free sample every day, why would they need to buy it when they can just return to the grocery store every day and get some more free sample as they please!I have 12,000 links listed - a vast majority are free sites, but let's say that 1/2 of them are free sites with pics & the other 1/2 are movie sites or pay - at 20 pics/site, that's 120,000 free pics. My grocery store gives away free samples all day long, but people still buy frozen burritos from time to time :)

[virgohippy]

Who'da thunk that this would become the board's HOT thread?

What I find most interesting is the amount of board members in support of the changes.

As though a bunch of us were just waiting for greenie to say it was okay. |thumb

[Preacher]

... but people still buy frozen burritos from time to timeI've heard of meat burritos, is this frozen type a way to prepare a cock for extra stimulation?

You know there was a depraved porn movie with a girl wrapped in a giant burrito that I would love to reference right now, but it seems that age is taking a toll on my old noggan. :(

[JustRobert]

but people still buy frozen burritos from time to time :)
I like frozen burritos. It makes it easier to keep working :D

[Kinky]

but it seems that age is taking a toll on my old noggan. :(

are you sure it isn't all those Xany bars? :D

[WarBot]

I have one free site with pics of yours listed (it has 30 pics with 15/page btw :D)

DOH!

I was looking at the size of the pics & they are really strange. 640 x 399, 412, 373, 403. etc - why are you cropping these by hand?

I dont crop the larger images just the thumbs.

They came all wierd sized like that. Got em from david lace a looooong time ago (did he go out of business?).

[WarBot]

I have one free site with pics of yours listed

See, you list my sites on link-o-rama and porn movie links. I dont submit crappy content sites right? Yes Im an insecure little man. |waves|

[MrYum]

I like frozen burritos. It makes it easier to keep working :D
I keep a stash of those suckers in the freezer at all times...they're tasty |thumb

I'm not wild about increasing site widths yet...there are still a good number of surfers at 800 wide. Most recent data I could find was about 20%, but that was from January of this year...so it's no doubt dropped further since that time. However, that's still more surfers than I want to make side scroll. In another 6 to 12 months, that will most likely change.

Bumping up pic sizes slightly though I think is a damn fine idea :)

[WarBot]

See, you list my sites on link-o-rama and porn movie links. I dont submit crappy content sites right? Yes Im an insecure little man. |waves|

Anyone can go ahead and replay to this. I decided that Im ok if you just say it to make me feel better.

[virgohippy]

Anyone can go ahead and replay to this. I decided that Im ok if you just say it to make me feel better.

Lol!

What's the matter WarBot, not catching any fish? ;)

I like the two freesites I've seen. And those new banners of yours are pretty nifty. |thumb

[Preacher]

are you sure it isn't all those Xany bars? :DActually I'm poor so I buy the generic, so they're not bars their actually ovals...but yes that could be what's doing it. :D

You know there was a depraved porn movie with a girl wrapped in a giant burrito that I would love to reference right now, but it seems that age is taking a toll on my old noggan. :(I just love responding to myself...

"(Aurora Snow) mentioned her stint as a 'human burrito' in one volume of Jim Powers' Perverted Stories."

I am a very sick man...|goodnight

[WarBot]

Lol!

What's the matter WarBot, not catching any fish? ;)

I like the two freesites I've seen. And those new banners of yours are pretty nifty. |thumb

Haha, now I dont know if youre serious or just saying it to make me feel better. Either way, thanks :) I thought those custom banners were pretty cool. I tried to let the surfer know that even though the videos were softcore of her that they could see her getting boned if they joined up to the site :D She is very hot though, such a cute face and pretty smile. Those guys have some very hot models, most of them are all natural too. I love that.

Cheers
WB

[Carrie]

I'm happy that you're finally allowing 1024-width sites. I've been on here asking/debating that before, saying the LLs are demanding bigger pics but keeping us throttled to 800x600 displays in spite of the overwhelming majority of surfers being at 1024x768 or higher.

For those of you who are saying "it's only 2 more pics"... umm, no... it's 4 more pics. That's a 20% increase in the free porn you're giving to the surfer. Still seem like "not so much"?
(Btw not many seem to marry the "it's only 2 more pics" with the words "per gallery".)

It's actually funny to see the other LL owners jumping on the bandwagon. I think if Greenie said "you must fart while submitting", pretty soon most of the LLs would have that rule as well! *wink*

The no pics on html rule... well I guess the reasoning for this is less pages to check, but really, taking away advertising space is purposely hurting us. Additional pics, additional size all equal up to more bandwidth to please your surfers, but we can't advertise as much. Would you reconsider that rule?

[Useless]

For those of you who are saying "it's only 2 more pics"... umm, no... it's 4 more pics. That's a 20% increase in the free porn you're giving to the surfer. Still seem like "not so much"?
(Btw not many seem to marry the "it's only 2 more pics" with the words "per gallery".)Are you saying that we are stupid or deciptive? Get over it. It's done.
It's actually funny to see the other LL owners jumping on the bandwagon. I think if Greenie said "you must fart while submitting", pretty soon most of the LLs would have that rule as well! *wink*You won't see my rules change. I may agree with the Green One's changes and the reasoning behind them, but that doesn't mean that I think they're so grand that I wish to institute them myself. In fact, I'm going to open my admin right now and reject a couple of sites in protest of GG's rules. Then I'm going to reject 10 or so more due to you implying that we are all sheep. Baaaah, right back at ya.

The no pics on html rule... well I guess the reasoning for this is less pages to check, but really, taking away advertising space is purposely hurting us. Additional pics, additional size all equal up to more bandwidth to please your surfers, but we can't advertise as much. Would you reconsider that rule?|huh Most link lists haven't allowed full sized pics on their own HTML pages in quite awhile. And yes, it is meant to intentionally hurt the submitter. List owners sit around conspiring against free site builders on a fucking daily basis.

Must be nice and quiet under that rock.

[virgohippy]

I'm happy that you're finally allowing 1024-width sites. I've been on here asking/debating that before, saying the LLs are demanding bigger pics but keeping us throttled to 800x600 displays in spite of the overwhelming majority of surfers being at 1024x768 or higher.

You make it seem like you're the only one who's posed this issue before. |sad|

It's actually funny to see the other LL owners jumping on the bandwagon. I think if Greenie said "you must fart while submitting", pretty soon most of the LLs would have that rule as well! *wink*

Actually, a few other LL owners have been more than ready to implement changes similar to what Greenie outlined. In fact, a few already have. Greenie isn't the first. He's just, argueably, the most well known.

[virgohippy]

Missed this point...

The no pics on html rule... well I guess the reasoning for this is less pages to check, but really, taking away advertising space is purposely hurting us. Additional pics, additional size all equal up to more bandwidth to please your surfers, but we can't advertise as much. Would you reconsider that rule?

I imagine not accepting sites because there just isn't enough time in the day to check them is even more harmful to submitters. |sad|

And FYI, some sites DO accept pic pages. If you're that concerned about it, group your recips by who does and build 'em. :)

[WarBot]

I guess the point that really hit home with me is when someone said (Im too lazy to look and see who) that link lists have to compete with tgp's. Its 1 click to get to the free porn compared to... more than 1 (Now Im too lazy to count). The only way to compete is with higher quality. Link lists get alot of search engine traffic, and I think alot of it is eventually lost to tgp's. This will help to prevent that. So I think its going to be better for everyone. Link lists will keep more bookmarkers, free site builders will have the benefit of the extra traffic to their sites.

I finally get it.

[LB]

My personal opinion aside looks like we have a new standard and what is done is done.

My question is ... does this count for sponsor hosted freesites aswell? We have a tidy little collection of them in for Titanbucks and just want to know if we will need to go through and update them all?

Cheers.

[virgohippy]

I guess the point that really hit home with me is when someone said

|roses| I elaborated on just that, but I wasn't the only one who pointed it out. I think for a lot of people here it was a generally understood thing. ;)

I finally get it.

I think the other board members sensed you would. Tis why there is no harm in open and honest dialogue. :)

[virgohippy]

My question is ... does this count for sponsor hosted freesites aswell? We have a tidy little collection of them in for Titanbucks and just want to know if we will need to go through and update them all?

Greenie says old listings will be grandfathered in. So I guess for LOR newly made sites will just need to be made accordingly. |thumb

However, freehosted sites get pulled by webmasters at various odd times, so I guess it all amounts to whether it's easier to continue to make new ones, or to adjust the old. |huh

I think you're right in assuming a new standard will emerge (don't forget to fart whenever you submit sites|thumb ) but I wouldn't be surprised if there's a bit of tweaking before there's a stone tablet all LL owners bow down to. :D

[Fonz]

Most link lists haven't allowed full sized pics on their own HTML pages in quite awhile. And yes, it is meant to intentionally hurt the submitter. List owners sit around conspiring against free site builders on a fucking daily basis.

You weren't supposed to make this public!!! DAMN IT! |catfight|

Oh yeah and those 4 pics extra are really hurting our bizz, I'm going to introduce the 1 page with 1 link and no pics freesite!! Boy am I going to get rich |bananna|

[Greenguy]

...For those of you who are saying "it's only 2 more pics"... umm, no... it's 4 more pics. That's a 20% increase in the free porn you're giving to the surfer. Still seem like "not so much"?
(Btw not many seem to marry the "it's only 2 more pics" with the words "per gallery".)...Well, a 10% increase to 22 total & 11 per page would just be silly - who makes galleries with 11 pics?

...It's actually funny to see the other LL owners jumping on the bandwagon. I think if Greenie said "you must fart while submitting", pretty soon most of the LLs would have that rule as well! *wink*...It honestly never even crossed my mind that others would follow suit until Fonz joked about it after I posted. Let's all remember that if you build sites that fit at 800 & follow the rest of the rules, you'll still get listed at most places. Plus, with a little testing, you can build sites that have tables set to 100% that still fit at 800 (but please, test them out & make sure they look decent before you submit them)

...The no pics on html rule... well I guess the reasoning for this is less pages to check, but really, taking away advertising space is purposely hurting us. Additional pics, additional size all equal up to more bandwidth to please your surfers, but we can't advertise as much. Would you reconsider that rule? I got rid of this rule because I can honestly not remember the last time I had a site submitted that had pics on html pages. It seemed like it was a useless rule.

...My question is ... does this count for sponsor hosted freesites aswell? We have a tidy little collection of them in for Titanbucks and just want to know if we will need to go through and update them all?...Any site that's listed with a date prior to August 21 2006 will not have the new rules applied to it EVER! MML will still be checking all the sites by hand from time to time, but only sites listed after Monday will be re-reviewed with the new rules.

...and everyone knows that LL's bend the rules for HFS's from time to time |couch|

[sue-fl]

If your picture is 600 x 450 thats 600 + 450 = 1050. Its just long side + short side is all. No complex formula's just addition (luckily for me too lol)

Cheers
WB

Thanks WarBot at least I know what size to use now! Have to be honest with you though addition is a complex formula for me |crazy| And believe it or not I did manage to graduate from High School hell even college!

I just wonder when I go bigger in my pic size if I'm going to get rejected at other LL's? There is no way in hell I would not submit to Greenie's LL so I'll change things. And no I'm not kissing ass, Linkorama is always in the top traffic sender in my stats. Not going to give that up!

[LB]

Any site that's listed with a date prior to August 21 2006 will not have the new rules applied to it EVER! MML will still be checking all the sites by hand from time to time, but only sites listed after Monday will be re-reviewed with the new rules.

...and everyone knows that LL's bend the rules for HFS's from time to time |couch|

Thanks for the answer :)

I think we will redo them anyhow so they are in line with the new rule sets.

[JustRobert]

Oh yeah and those 4 pics extra are really hurting our bizz, I'm going to introduce the 1 page with 1 link and no pics freesite!! Boy am I going to get rich |bananna|

Can I submit 2 sites a day :D

[ponygirl]

I just wonder when I go bigger in my pic size if I'm going to get rejected at other LL's? There is no way in hell I would not submit to Greenie's LL so I'll change things. And no I'm not kissing ass, Linkorama is always in the top traffic sender in my stats. Not going to give that up!

Sue, I don't think you'll get rejected for bigger pic sizes...we'll just have to keep an eye on the weight. I'm used to optimizing to about 60kb or so, I'm going to up it to just under 80. That should still be ok for most LLs. (I hope :))

I have only seen a few LLs that have a weight rule, I'd like to see what they think too.

[docholly]

what are we all gonna do when Greenie starts making us build for all the people that are buying widescreen monitors and laptops which are all the rage today? I want stuff to look good on my 42" plasma monitor and my 50" HD monitor in the living room too :D

|couch|

and i'm thinking how can i compress it to fit into that tiny mobile screen on ESPN fone, or IPOD or PSP and still be able to see tits???

[Greenguy]

...I think we will redo them anyhow so they are in line with the new rule sets.I'd like to go on record by saying that I do not encourage or expect people to go thru their old sites & adjust them to fit the new rules.

Seems there's threads on 3 other boards about this (Netpond, Medium Pimpin & a 3rd that's in a language that 99.44% of my surfers don't speak) Please do not go by anything that is posted as fact or hearsay in those threads, as I really don't want to go from board to board explaining things, especially the existence of unofficial rules |crazy|

[Fonz]

Seems there's threads on 3 other boards about this (Netpond, Medium Pimpin & a 3rd that's in a language that 99.44% of my surfers don't speak) Please do not go by anything that is posted as fact or hearsay in those threads, as I really don't want to go from board to board explaining things, especially the existence of unofficial rules |crazy|
Just read the other threads, it seems like the sky is falling again :D
|skyfall|

[Greenguy]

Well, it is Fonz! Bigger pics to go with bigger sites that fit on bigger monitors!?!?!?!?!! WTF is wrong with me!?!?!?!?!?!

I really wish I had the next 2 things ready to be released, because now it's going to look like I'm kissing every submitters ass when I do announce them.

Or maybe I won't announce them at all - just put them into place & see who notices - because |buddy| forbid people get upset with things that I think will benefit surfers & webmasters to my site |couch|

[swedguy]

if you go to a grocery store and get a free sample and it tastes like shit are you going to buy some of it? hell no but if it tastes great you MIGHT buy some
Who do you think sell the most?

A sales guy that really know his product and give away free samples to give the customer a feel for the product but HE sells the product?

Or a guy that doesn't know his product, but give away free samples and hope that the product will sell itself?


EDIT: Clarified. Comparing apples to apples

[Mr. Blue]

With the way these new rules have been spreading on boards I thought I'd have to give a urine sample with each submit (I'd still win the Tour de France though).

Seems to me like these are straight forward rules that a lot of webmasters have already been using for awhile now and it really isn't that dramatic of a change. So, why is everyone getting so excited over it? lol.

Too bad though, I think I've missed the opportunity to join in the mass hysteria and now I feel leftout.

[Jim]

Seems there's threads on 3 other boards about this (Netpond, Medium Pimpin & a 3rd that's in a language that 99.44% of my surfers don't speak) Please do not go by anything that is posted as fact or hearsay in those threads, as I really don't want to go from board to board explaining things, especially the existence of unofficial rules |crazy|

I noticed that unofficial rules post :)
I talked to you the day you decided on the new rules and nothing was being done before you posted them.

But, what can you expect? By now, everyone should know that you do what you do to make the surfers come back over and over. And, if it doesn't work out for you, you change the rules back.

But, according to most posts, you are going to be the downfall of free sites :)

[CrazySy]

I have been following the new rules for a long time :D

[MrYum]

I noticed that unofficial rules post :)
I talked to you the day you decided on the new rules and nothing was being done before you posted them.

But, what can you expect? By now, everyone should know that you do what you do to make the surfers come back over and over. And, if it doesn't work out for you, you change the rules back.

But, according to most posts, you are going to be the downfall of free sites :)
I haven't seen the threads on the other boards and frankly don't have time or desire to do so. From the sound of the tone they're taking...geez, that's just nuts |crazy|

I may not be quite ready to agree with Greenie on the site width issue, but do have some ideas for a compromise to remain in step for submitters. That said, these changes really aren't that big a deal. "The downfall of free sites"...puhleeeze! |banghead|

[Chop Smith]

Unofficially, I am glad I do have to read 8.02+ posts per day filled with bad information from someone overdosed on Mountain Dew.

[Useless]

I have been following the new rules for a long time :DAnd my point is made. CrazySy is part of a very small group I think of as elite free site builders; people who construct highly refined sites, both in appearance and salesmanship. That group has been raising the level of free site quality all along and they make "normal" free sites look slapped together. The really good free site builders won't feel encumbered by these new rules.

Again, my defense of the new rules doesn't mean that I'm adding them to my lists, but you won't ever see me declining anyone for more/bigger pics and I gave up on ridding the world of horizontal scroll months ago. Build decent sites and you'll have my love and admiration.

[WarBot]

CrazySy is part of a very small group I think of as elite free site builders; people who construct highly refined sites, both in appearance and salesmanship.

(Grumble grumble at UW)

[KG Gary]

The changes get a thumbs up from me.
:)
The only problem I can see is keeping those pic weights to a reasonable size. Apart from that issue, which I'm pretty sure won't even be an issue, this just seems a logical next step.
I've been feeling quite good about currently using 24 pics per freesite, and now everyone else will be doing it! Dammit!
:D

Just got to go with whatever the current rules are and adapt as necessary.

[Sexvilly]

interesting,

I would even adjust my freesites pictures to 1200 rule if submitting to link-o-rama as with todays resolution these pictures will look just about the same as 550-345 looked yesterday, but I don't understand why more total pics?

[Carrie]

I got rid of this rule because I can honestly not remember the last time I had a site submitted that had pics on html pages. It seemed like it was a useless rule.[/SIZE]
That makes sense. Although, not really a reason to disallow it just because no one's using it ;)

Virgo - I know some sites do accept pics on HTML, and it was nice that GG was always one of the bigger "holdouts" on allowing that. Sad to see it go. Never said I was the only one who brought up the screen size, just that I'd asked about it before (and had always gotten poo-poo'd for it, btw).

UW - I'm not implying that people are either stupid or deceptive. I'm simply pointing out that while 4 more pics doesn't *sound* like much, it's actually a 20% increase. When you think about it that way, it gives you a more concrete idea of what this change means. For one site? No biggee. Think about it in broader terms- folks who submit freesites daily will be increasing their total free porn output 20% across the board. That's a significant increase, and it's something to consider.
The rock comment was cute. Childish, but cute. There is life outside of GG&J, in case you hadn't checked lately.

[Greenguy]

Carrie - stop with the 20% angle - the only other increase would have been 10% & like I said, 11 pics per gallery is just silly. No one builds galleries with 11 pics (and if you do, please show me the template & I pray the 11th one is labeled "BONUS PIC!")

Jay's rules have been "You site must have at least 40 pics" for a long time - HOLY SHIT! That's a 100% increase over my old rules & 67% more than now (I think - my math sucks)

PK? "A combination of thirty (30) free pics..." AAAAHHHHH! That's 25% more than mine!!!!!

I was reading thru a lot of other Link List's rules yesterday & today, and while I was scratching my head as to why so many have copied mine (some word for word) I also realized that some of them don't say they have a minimum pic requirement (so I guess 2 is ok - or 4, which would be a 100% increase from 2) Some say they will reject the sites if the pics are too small, but they don't tell you what they consider "too small".

At lease I'm now telling everyone what's what :)

Also, just a general thought...no one else has mentioned anything that's NOT on the rules page....|couch|

[Useless]

There is life outside of GG&J, in case you hadn't checked lately.Ya think?

|waves|

[virgohippy]

No one builds galleries with 11 pics (and if you do, please show me the template & I pray the 11th one is labeled "BONUS PIC!")

I can tell Greenie's not the one reviewing my freesites. |loony|

Personally, I like odd numbers. They FORCE me to make unique layouts. |thumb

FYI:

3+3+5 = 11
5+4+2 = 11
2+3+6 = 11
2+9 = 11
8+3 = 11

All of which have worked for me. :D

[Greenguy]

9 pics in a row? 80 for the width of the thumbs? :D

[virgohippy]

9 pics in a row? 80 for the width of the thumbs? :D

Tall thumbs. |thumb

[Kinky]

EDIT: Clarified. Comparing apples to apples

don't you mean burritos to burritos?

|couch|

[OneWhoKnows]

OK, gotta have to throw in my newbie 2c into this new rule thingy, although probably noone gives a f**k :D

The picture size - well, I don't care much, my pix already applied with that b4 it came up. And I think that 1200 combined rule is better than saying 800 on the long side. I haven't seen a lot of 750x450 pix, but they are out there and that way they are accepted aswell.

I'm glad that you dropped that 800x600 rule, I mean my sites don't have any horizontal scrolling at 800x600, but I really think that's a kinda useless rule. I mean, who (besides Useless Warrior *lol*) really keeps his resolution at 800x600? Like 95% of my visitors have a 1024x768 resolution or higher - for myself I'm running at 1280x1024 and I don't have any monster machine, just a decent computer with a 19" screen, which is nothing special imo.

Oh, and that extra 2 pix per gallery. Maybe it gets harder to find the content for your galleries now, as some sponsors don't give out much free content, but on the other hand it now makes more sense to use 2 different girls/scenes for one freesite, which I find more interesting anywayz. 10 pix per scene was not that great before.

Oh, and what about the file size? I mean I submitted to 9 different LL's so far, many of them I'd consider as "big players" - I haven't found a "max 100kb per pic" rule at any of them. I mean, it's my bandwidth, isn't it? :D Sure, a 500kb pic loading for 2 minutes is crap, but come on, almost everyone has a fast connection nowadays, so 200kb pics are no prob for most surfers.

[CrazySy]

UW, thanks for compliment :)

What I don't get is as to why some people think they will be giving more free porn away? Does the rule say 4 extra hardcore images? NO, it does not. Simply add 4 more teaser images of the model |loony| I have built sites with 30 images yet I gave away less than some sites with 20. It's not the quantity of the content, it's how you choose it.

I think majority of submitters don't like that just because of the fact some of their sponsors don't offer more than 20 per set.

Just my 2 cents

Now I better get my sorry ass back to work :D

[WarBot]

Now I better get my sorry ass back to work :D

WAIT! Dont get your sorry ass back to work until you visit this thread
http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/showthread.php?p=293941#post293941
and give me some pointers please.

[Ms Naughty]

GG- A clarification please.
You say 24 pic minimum (12 per gallery) BUT what if I decided I wanted to create a freesite with 30 pics in 3 galleries? I'd be complying with the 24 pic minimum rule and the third page would give me another chance to put two more ads in front of the surfer.

When I first started making free sites I often made 3 gallery free sites because I thought it would be a good way to do a bit more advertising. I stopped when the rules started getting restrictive but this has reminded me of it.

[Greenguy]

grandmascrotum - it's still 12 per gallery page - if that part of the rule is not in there, I'd get sites with 4 pages & 6 pics on each (found that out a long time ago)

[virgohippy]

grandmascrotum - it's still 12 per gallery page - if that part of the rule is not in there, I'd get sites with 4 pages & 6 pics on each (found that out a long time ago)

Darn... 12+12+12 = 36 = too many at some places.

But maybe that will change. |huh

[Mr. Blue]

Think about it in broader terms- folks who submit freesites daily will be increasing their total free porn output 20% across the board. That's a significant increase, and it's something to consider.
The rock comment was cute. Childish, but cute. There is life outside of GG&J, in case you hadn't checked lately.

Most people that build freesites also build galleries...they use two galleries they submit to tgps to build a freesite. To get listed on most tgps you should go with around 15 pics per gallery (some allow less, but almost none allow under 12 pics unless you manage to find an old ghost town TGP2 site that someone forgot to shutdown).

Many people are already building freesites with more content then GG is requiring now. So, I'm not actually sure why this 20% thing is such a big thing for you.

[Sexvilly]

in case my question went unnoticed -

what point stand behind +4 pictures rule?

I see this: attract bookmarkers from other link-lists offering them more free porn than other lists who haven't yet got this rule?
but that's how tgp started it's destruction awhile ago, why follow this? everybody is making money now, why change anything? don't get the point.

(talking as free site submitter)

somebody mentioned in the thread before, better quality content = more sales for free site submitter. free site strategy has nothing to do with content at all and fact you are making most of your sales from index / main pages just proves it... content is to fill up link-list you're submitting to, that's why you want to use less amount of pictures allowed.

personally, going to stop submitting to every link-list from my database who copy this rule. for free sites submitters, it's not about traffic you receive from this or that link-list after all > it's about link-backs to get your free site indexed in SearchEngines in the end of the day. some forget this or haven't realised.

[Cleo]

Most people that build freesites also build galleries...they use two galleries they submit to tgps to build a freesite. To get listed on most tgps you should go with around 15 pics per gallery (some allow less, but almost none allow under 12 pics unless you manage to find an old ghost town TGP2 site that someone forgot to shutdown).

Many people are already building freesites with more content then GG is requiring now. So, I'm not actually sure why this 20% thing is such a big thing for you.
Yeah I've been doing this for years. Using 15 pics also allows me to be more creative with ad layout.

For what it's worth I've updated my LL rules (http://www.cleos-porn-links.com/adult-links/submit.shtml) as well. :)

[bluemoney]

Leave it to some porn slingin |potleaf|webmasters to overcomplicate and over think, a few uncomplicated simple rules. "Y'all er killin me"

PS. I know, I'm a "Fargin Icehole" :D

[Greenguy]

...what point stand behind +4 pictures rule?

I see this: attract bookmarkers from other link-lists offering them more free porn than other lists who haven't yet got this rule?
but that's how tgp started it's destruction awhile ago, why follow this? everybody is making money now, why change anything? don't get the point...That statement is so off base, it's funny. 1st off, you're assuming that surfers know what the rules are from link list to link list (I'm not even going to start up the old debate that surfers know if they are on a TGP or a LL, because they don't) Surfers don't bookmark a LL because they see 24 pics & not bookmark a LL because they see 20 - they bookmark sites that the like.

The 2nd part is that you're even implying that I want to attract (dare I say, steal) bookmarkers from other LL's. That's really strange, since my main page has 40 or so links to other lists & my category pages have countless links to others as well. I'm not in a competition with any other link lists - I send traffic to Cleo, she send traffic to me. I send traffic to Linkster, he sends traffic to me. We all pretty much share our traffic with each other.

...somebody mentioned in the thread before, better quality content = more sales for free site submitter. free site strategy has nothing to do with content at all and fact you are making most of your sales from index / main pages just proves it... content is to fill up link-list you're submitting to, that's why you want to use less amount of pictures allowed... If that's the case, then what do you care if you have 20, 24, 30, 60, 1000 pics on your gallery pages.

I've never begged for submissions & I rarely kiss the submitters ass - especially when they think their site is my content. I send out a lot traffic on a daily basis & I have to have some rule in place as far as what I list. Don't like the rules, don't submit.

...personally, going to stop submitting to every link-list from my database who copy this rule. for free sites submitters, it's not about traffic you receive from this or that link-list after all > it's about link-backs to get your free site indexed in SearchEngines in the end of the day. some forget this or haven't realised. That really is a Catch 22 - most of the big traffic sending Link Lists are the ones that have the most SE "power" (for lack of a better word) So by not submitting to the big link lists, your chances of getting decent (if any) SE listings is very slim.

[docholly]

Let me just go on record as saying..i'm am so totally blown away by the number of people freaking out over 4 more pictures.. and a little extra cheap ass bandwidth..

Change, like surfer's dicks, is hard. :D

[Useless]

personally, going to stop submitting to every link-list from my database who copy this rule. for free sites submitters, it's not about traffic you receive from this or that link-list after all > it's about link-backs to get your free site indexed in SearchEngines in the end of the day. some forget this or haven't realised.Holy Shit! A statement like that makes me WANT to adopt GG's new rules. Goddamn - if it would keep IGNORANT INBRED COCKSUCKERS LIKE YOU from ever submitting to me, it may be very well worth it.

Who the fuck do you think feels threatened by that? Do you think there are link list owners sitting at home wetting their panties because a few free site submitters don't like a couple of rules. WAKE THE FUCK UP! Free site submitters have never like the rules.

Christ, I hate Comic Sans, but you don't see me threatening to boycott LOR's FREE FUCKING TRAFFIC.

RAMOOOOME! SHOVE SEXVILLY BACK INTO HIS MOTHER'S CUNT SO THAT I DON'T HAVE TO READ HIS FUCKING POSTS!

[Simon]

Change, like surfer's dicks, is hard. :D
As is said, from your lips to God's ear.

Wait...

Yeah, that was pornographic and blasphemous at the same time.

Damn.

|buddy|

[Greenguy]

I think I know why Sexvilly is so upset with Link Lists
....got my email xxxchances.com banned in the beginning of my Carrier for copying ads from other free sites. I learned the lesson, built more that 700+ freesites of my own, and appealed 3 times but no reply followed. can you take care of this GreenGuy?
Honestly, I'm waiting to hear back form the webmaster that you copied the ads from before I remove you.

[emmanuelle]

Something that has not been covered in this (exhaustive) thread:

Very few sponsors offer downloadable content due either to 2275 issues, or licence controls. Many of the ones that do, seem to offer tiny 640x40- either screen caps, or with the idea that they are making life easier for submitters.

Personally, I am hoping that these changes reflect positively on smaller programs (such as ours :D ) who seem to be more flexible with their affiliates, and often produce their own content and so have no licencing issues to worry about.

[Sexvilly]

no Greenie, not upset with link-lists at all... upset with your new rule as some might follow... and would like to hear explanation of +4 pictures rule which no one asked.


freesites with COPIED Ads been removed long ago, I already answered for this of my mistakes and couple others on this board.

[Greenguy]

...upset with your new rule as some might follow... and would like to hear explanation of +4 pictures rule which no one asked...I've explained it 4 times already - if I make one thing bigger, then they all have to be bigger - site size, pics size, number of pics, length of movies (which was too long under the old rules but fits nicely now)

[MrYum]

As is said, from your lips to God's ear.

Wait...

Yeah, that was pornographic and blasphemous at the same time.

Damn.

|buddy|
Yea...it was...

Well done! :D

So Greenie...did ya think these relatively innocuous changes would cause such a furor??? lol

[Jim]

Why the fuck does it matter what one person decides to do to his own private site? I think it has been quite a few years that Greenie has had to go out and beg for people to submit to link-o-rama. So, the answer for everyone pissing and moaning about rule changes is simple, submit someplace else. Even if it is a 20% increase of free porn that will be the downfall of this business :)

There are plenty of new linklists everyday that really want sites with only 20 pictures. Use them and worry about your own sites. I have never understood the thinking behind anyone believing they were due an explanation about someone else's site's rules.

We used to get a lot of that on GreenguyandJim as well. Until people realized that discussing business actually made you more money that wondering who would hit Lindsey Lohan. :)

[bluemoney]

. . . . wondering who would hit Lindsey Lohan. :)
For the record, I would hit Lindsey Lohan over and over and twice on Sunday.
OOPS! Scoot over Simon I'm going to hell with you.

[MrYum]

For the record, I would hit Lindsey Lohan over and over and twice on Sunday.
OOPS! Scoot over Simon I'm going to hell with you.
Make that a threeso..... oh wait! Nevermind...that could be mis-interpreted :D

[spookyx]

Well, just my 2 cents. I like the larger pic/24 pic rule. 10 pics always seemed kinda bare to me :)

hmmm wonder if we should make our hosted freesites 24 pics? feedback everyone?

|boobies|

[WarBot]

I have to give my 2 cents on this topic again. After much consideration, yes, I would hit Lindsey Lohan but Id prefer to hit Morena Baccarin.

But seriously,

Jays requires 40 (ish)
PK requires 30
LOR requires 24

I hope now that theres a 1200 w+h rule that some ll's will up their 80kb and under file size rule a bit.

[HarryM]

I would hit Lindsey Lohan but Id prefer to hit Morena Baccarin.

|thumb

[zobmaster]

no changes for me, I alway use 30 pics per free site. Just have to check for the pic size......

[Dagwolf]

I thought there was ALWAYS a rule on Link-o-rama against pics on html pages. :P

[albundy]

dont seem very bad, but i do not like the 1200 rule, many sponsors do not have that big pictures, i dont see a point of this rule :(

[virgohippy]

dont seem very bad, but i do not like the 1200 rule, many sponsors do not have that big pictures, i dont see a point of this rule :(

FYI, it's 1200 combined width and height. A 750x450 pic passes the rule. :)

Almost all sponsors I can think of which don't offer content at least 750 don't offer any content at all. |loony|

[albundy]

i know its combined, my best sponsors offer 640*480 or similar, other good 1177 combined and so on :)

[virgohippy]

i know its combined, my best sponsors offer 640*480 or similar, other good 1177 combined and so on :)

|sad|

Nice thing about the adult biz: you're forced to adapt quickly! |thumb

[softhaus]

Jim;294152]Why the fuck does it matter what one person decides to do to his own private site?

No shit! Here are the rules. Do you meet the rules? If not move on. It seems everyone is so programmed that's the way we always did it and when it changes everybody freaks out.

Business changes daily and if you do not adjust, guess what you're out of business. I've owned a computer company since 1989 and if I didn't change my business model as I went along I would have been out of business in 1989.

Do you think that when a business makes a change (rules or whatever) that it's a knee jerk reaction? Of course not. It's a conscious decision that will make the business grow and take it to the next level.

And this is a business so if the business owner makes changes that's in the best interest of HIS business accept that fact and either comply or find something else to do that's more suitable (nothing changes)

My humble opinion.

Cheers

[Greenguy]

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 :)

[Jim]

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 :)

Good for you, my friend.

Fuck those cocksuckers that try to tell you what to do with your own site. I have a few pet peeves and that is one of my biggest.

[albundy]

cool, that you list more sites, but its strange that happened after rules became more strict...

[Greenguy]

I wouldn't say more strict - I've always had pretty strict rules. I'd say that some rules make life easier & some make them harder.

Oddly enough, submits are down a bit, but since I'm listing more sites, I'm happy.

[MrYum]

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 |thumb

[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 :D

[kenny]

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]

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/clicks.cgi?CA=912525&PA=138729&HTML=http://www.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]

...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? |couch|

:D

[DJilla]

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!

:D

[jmf000]

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. :D