Is this OK?

[Tekster]

Is this OK to use as header / title on a free site? Of course it is a free site promoting Cum Hungry Pornstars. :)
Header ( http://www.tekporn.com/free/header.jpg)

It is a header from one of the hosted galleries and I added the title.

[Cleo]

I don't have a problem with it as long as it isn't linked.

[Tekster]

Thanks Cleo, no links just as a title header :)

[Greenguy]

I'd like to see it on a site, but my 1st feeling is that it'd be ok.

[Cleo]

BTW, you may want to add greenguysboard.com to your htaccess if you are going to post links to pics on your domain. I had to hit return in order to send a no referral request since clicking on it gives a forbidden error.

[dunc]

Can I ask why it wouldn't be ok (serious question) - is it because its too graphic?

I haven't built many free sites

[Tekster]

I'd like to see it on a site, but my 1st feeling is that it'd be ok.

Thanks Greenie, here is the site: www.tekporn.com/free/sexy-cock-sucking/jenna-presley-blowjob

What do you think?

[Tekster]

BTW, you may want to add greenguysboard.com to your htaccess if you are going to post links to pics on your domain. I had to hit return in order to send a no referral request since clicking on it gives a forbidden error.

OK, How do I do that? I mean what is the code to add?

[Tekster]

Can I ask why it wouldn't be ok (serious question) - is it because its too graphic?

I haven't built many free sites

The reason I was asking is because it uses a modified pay site banner with the pay site name on it. (Cum Hungry Pornstars is a pay site)

[dunc]

The reason I was asking is because it uses a modified pay site banner with the pay site name on it. (Cum Hungry Pornstars is a pay site)

Thanks TekAngel

[Cleo]

OK, How do I do that? I mean what is the code to add?
I thought you had some kind of htaccess file on your domain

[Tekster]

I thought you had some kind of htaccess file on your domain

I just looked again, but there is no htaccess file.
Anyway, I do have a htaccess file on other domains, how do I add greenguysboard.com to that?

[Useless]

I thought you had some kind of htaccess file on your domainI can't see it in Firefox, but I can in IE.

BTW - unlinked, it's perfectly fine with me.

[Cleo]

I can't see it in Firefox, but I can in IE.
In Safari I had to hit return in order to send a no referral request since clicking on it gave me a forbidden error.

[Fonz]

Could be there's some kind of hotlinking protection enabled by the host. Colo-cation has it standard on their static virtual accounts if I'm not mistaken.

[Greenguy]

Thanks Greenie, here is the site: www.tekporn.com/free/sexy-cock-sucking/jenna-presley-blowjob

What do you think?|thumb

[Cleo]

Looks fine (I do find the pic disgusting though :D)

[Preacher]

Looks fine (I do find the pic disgusting though :D)
:D Thanks!

I use paysite headers in freesites on occasion, always unlinked and I've never had any problems.

In fact I think more people should use Cum Hungry Pornstar headers. |couch|

[Useless]

I use paysite headers in freesites on occasion, always unlinked and I've never had any problems.I didn't like that one you made based on two girls, one cup. |barf|

[LD]

I gots me some new ideas for headers based on this thread...:D

[bluebrit]

That's ok with me. A little graphic maybe but I’m beginning to see a lot of FS coming in that have obvious hardcore pictures on the index page. I personally am not keen on this as the index is supposed to give the surfer a warning that tells them if they continue further, they will see porn.

What's the point of a warning on the index if you see porn as soon as you view the index page?

My finger is hovering over the reject button for these but I’d like to hear what other people think about this and whether your getting the same sort of FS submits.

[sue-fl]

That is fine with me TekAngel!

Great banners Preacher I don't find them disgusting at all quite the opposite |thumb

Bluebrit I don't reject sites because of hardcore on the warning page. I didn't realize some LL's do it either. It does make sense what you wrote though as it is a warning page.

I do get a lot of fs submits with this and I also make them with hardcore on the warning page. Haven't run into a problem so far.

[Fonz]

I declined that site TekAngel.

Oh wait, you were approved :D

[Mr Spock]

BTW - unlinked, it's perfectly fine with me.

Why is it ok unlinked , but not linked?

[Mr Spock]

That's ok with me. A little graphic maybe but I’m beginning to see a lot of FS coming in that have obvious hardcore pictures on the index page. I personally am not keen on this as the index is supposed to give the surfer a warning that tells them if they continue further, they will see porn.

What's the point of a warning on the index if you see porn as soon as you view the index page?

My finger is hovering over the reject button for these but I’d like to hear what other people think about this and whether your getting the same sort of FS submits.

Whats the point of rejecting a fs for hardcore on the warning page , If they came from a LL they were already exposed to a warning page and should be expecting porn. If they came to the fs via a search query they were looking for porn as well?

[Cleo]

Why is it ok unlinked , but not linked?

Depending on the header it may or may not be a blind link.

Personally when I use a header I never link it unless the header reads something like click here to take a tour.

[Useless]

Why is it ok unlinked , but not linked?
It's a general rule of thumb with free sites to not link any large graphic header.


As to the other topic, hardcore on on the [I]warning page, I've no problem with it. In fact, I don't mind when the warning text is missing. As we've stated here far too many times, the vast abundance of traffic that will hit a free site is going to come from a link list. What would the point be of warning a porn surfer that he is going to see more porn? I think we should change the name from warning to ad page #1. ;)

[Greenguy]

...What would the point be of warning a porn surfer that he is going to see more porn?...Good Faith Effort, my friend.

GOOD FAITH EFFORT! :)

[LD]

As to the other topic, hardcore on on the warning page, I've no problem with it. In fact, I don't mind when the warning text is missing. As we've stated here far too many times, the vast abundance of traffic that will hit a free site is going to come from a link list. What would the point be of warning a porn surfer that he is going to see more porn? I think we should change the name from warning to ad page #1. ;)

I was thinking it was some cover your ass legal type thing...like the warning on a TV dinner that says "product may be hot after heating and will burn your ass"...Then if you get burned and try to sue, they can always say "hey stoopid, we warned you..."

But I too see a lot more hardcore on the warning page, usually in a banner ad. I typically do not do it on my submissions for fear of rejections, but if it becomes acceptable count me in...

[Useless]

Good Faith Effort, my friend.

GOOD FAITH EFFORT! :)If I knew a good girl named Faith, I would put in the effort. :)

[dunc]

Well this sort of relates to question 654 from my list :D

I always thought that the warning page was there in case the site got direct linked from the search engines - or its through one of your hub pages or something...

But question 654 was: Do you put a warning page on your main index and hub pages?

[Licker4U]

What's the point of a warning on the index if you see porn as soon as you view the index page?

A warning on the index page isn't required anymore, at least not at the 45 lists I submit to. There was a thread about this a while back but I can't figure out how to find old threads. Mad Hatter I think started the thread and it was generally agreed that it was OK to have hardcore on the index/warning page if the site is not on the root domain.

To me it's an index page, not a "warning" page.

[Useless]

I always thought that the warning page was there in case the site got direct linked from the search engines - or its through one of your hub pages or something...Well, the chances are that the index pages of your free sites will be listed by the SEs. But so will your content pages. What sort of warning do you have on them? ;)

I'm not telling everyone to toss out their warnings. I always use warning text on my index pages. I'm just saying that it would easily slide past me if the warning was missing amongst all those ads and reciprocal links.

[Cleo]

Personally I could care less what someone puts on the so called warning page. You could have a girl sucking cum out of a shemale's ass for all I care.

I view the so called warning page as someplace to stick some ads on.

[dunc]

Well, the chances are that the index pages of your free sites will be listed by the SEs. But so will your content pages. What sort of warning do you have on them? ;)

I'm not telling everyone to toss out their warnings. I always use warning text on my index pages. I'm just saying that it would easily slide past me if the warning was missing amongst all those ads and reciprocal links.
Yeah OK, check mate... I suppose if you get anal about your warning pages you'll end up with more warning pages than content pages and your sites will look like the stair cases on Cruise Liners

[SheepGuy]

I view the so called warning page as someplace to stick some ads on.

I'm with Cleo. I don't believe a legalish warning about pornography does anything to protect your ass from whoever or whatever the latest legal bogeyman is anyways |huh

[NY Jester]

Spock, some LL's rules state that there can be no Hardcore on the warning page..this includes banners or age graphics.

[Licker4U]

Spock, some LL's rules state that there can be no Hardcore on the warning page..this includes banners or age graphics.

I haven't seen that in a long time, who are they?

[dexcool]

You could have a girl sucking cum out of a shemale's ass for all I care.

|boobies|
umm, what site is that, it sounds like a good niche.

[LD]

I haven't seen that in a long time, who are they?


I had a reject a couple of months ago for hardcore on the warning page...I can't remember who it was though. I usually keep banner ads which contain hardcore off the warning page as well as hardcore pics, but after reading this thread I think I should lift that restriction.

I was reading something on another forum that warnings and softcore on the warning is actually a good thing. I mean if you tell someone there's gonna be fucking inside, they're more likely to come inside. And the softcore leaves 'em wanting more.

I have no idea if these are good sales tactics, but sounds somewhat valid. (?)

[bluebrit]

Whats the point of rejecting a fs for hardcore on the warning page , If they came from a LL they were already exposed to a warning page and should be expecting porn. If they came to the fs via a search query they were looking for porn as well?

That's a comment somebody made to me before posting my question but i wanted to ask your thoughts on this because i like knowing how other people feel about it and i do consider it important to have a clear understanding on whats ok and what isn't. Needless to say i'm ok with the porn on the front page on submits as it seems ok with everyone else and just so you know, i have not rejected any submits because of this, i was just getting a little itchy over seeing so much of it without a clear understanding of what everyone else thought.

Thanks for the replies everyone and TekAngel sorry, I kinda took over your thread a little without meaning too.

[papagmp]

Works for me - btw, there are a lot of LL's that state "no hardcore pics on the warning page"

It doesn't bother me cuz there are hardcore pics on every page that I would link to you from. Surfers either landed inside my LL of came through my warning page - either way, that had to be searching on porn - go figure....