New free site format (version 1.5) [Archive]

kit

2008-03-27, 07:39 PM

This is not a big secret, traffic leave Link Sites last years, especially after Google algo sfiting last 12 motnhs.

Last years I understood, the free sites layout is not so usable for surfers as tgp gallery. But good SE traffic made Links Sites profitable even the looks very ugly.

Last 12 months Google clearly shown: Classic free site is bulshit and worse. Most of free sites moved to the supplemental index and therefore Link Sites lost good SE positions because the list worse objects.

Free sites is a bad quality site in therms of Google because:
1) They never updates.
2) Text content duplicates many times and equal texts of hundreds other free sites.
3) They don't have new incoming links after initial listing in Link Sites.

Free site is a bad quality site in therms of Surfers because:
1) They have bad usability: surfer must click 3 times to see the gallery (warning page -> main page -> gallery).
2) They have small content amount (2-3 galleries)

Lets try to improve free sites topology and make them more competitive.

I offer one simple rule for discussion:
We accept free sites without warning page if you will add ICRA (http://www.icra.org/) or RTA (http://www.rtalabel.org/) meta tags to your site HTML code.

I name this format: free site V1.5
http://thepurelinks.com/tmp/f2.gif

Benefits:
1) There is no reason to keep warning page if you add special meta tags to HTML code.
2) Therefore free site layout become more usefull for surfing. Content can be accessed by two clicks instead 3 clicks before.
3) Decrease free sites mirroring.

PS. Read initial discussion on Master-X here (russian text) (http://www.master-x.com/forum/topics/99826/)

2008-03-27, 08:20 PM

Interesting. But will everyone else accept fs 1.5? I'm not sure I follow how I should or even if I should start using this...?

Licker4U

2008-03-27, 08:31 PM

All this does is knock out one whole page of ads and possible sales. I see no reason for link lists to reject your layout but it fucks free site builders in the ass without lube. |shocking| I won't build sites like that.

Tekster

2008-03-27, 08:32 PM

I don't understand how is this going to "Decrease free sites mirroring"
Also, since most of the sales come from the index page, this is going to help the submitters how?

I like change sometimes, but I think these are some unanswered questions.

Also, I wish I could read russian. maybe someone will translate.

Useless

2008-03-27, 09:31 PM

I love it and I'd definitely list that format. I don't understand how it could help with SEO for the free site or the link list, but I think it would be far more welcoming to surfers. I'd bet that a lot of surfers click away when they see a warning page and no obvious or direct route to the content. I'd still want 3 ad blocks per page though. I see only one on that proposed format.

We often say that most sales are attributed to the index and main pages of a free site, but how many of us are saying that because we read it somewhere? That's why I say it. (Most of the shit I spout off is based on what other's have said.) Not long ago, DD stated that sales are created by content. That makes a lot more sense to me than the idea of surfers being instantly sold by "click here for more big tits."

This is a great idea and a great discussion. I *think* even |greenguy| himself may have said that the free site has needed to be revamped for quite some time.

Preacher

2008-03-27, 09:37 PM

I like the idea of streamlining freesite navigation, especially from a linklists perception.

I want freesites listed at my linklist to be as easy to navigate as possible for my surfers. That way they come back to my site and then travel on to my submitters freesites. Doing away with the main page is a step towards that.

Now notice I said getting rid of the main page, because there's no reason a small block of warning text couldn't fit into Kit's suggested page layout above.

Useless

2008-03-27, 09:40 PM

I like the idea of streamlining freesite navigationThis, from the guy who has perfected the hiding of the Enter link. |loony|

ponygirl

2008-03-27, 10:09 PM

I would list sites like this, I like the idea of having to put the tags in there. I'd build like this too if I was sure they'd get accepted, so it'd be helpful if LL owners would post whether or not they'd take them :)

This, from the guy who has perfected the hiding of the Enter link. |loony|this made me lol :D

Preacher

2008-03-27, 10:13 PM

This, from the guy who has perfected the hiding of the Enter link. |loony|

They're not "hidden" reviewers just have to actually read the links they click on. |catfight|

Lemmy

2008-03-27, 10:17 PM

Like others here I don't really see how this would change anything with regards to the SEs, mirroring, duplicate content and text etc. However, if it makes the surfer happier and he/she stays at my site longer I'm all for it.

secretagentwilly

2008-03-27, 10:23 PM

I've ready about this posted on other boards...If the major sources of traffic will accept the freesites built this way then I have no object building them...I'll tow the "company line" but, as far as format, where are we picturing the recip table? At the top, bottom? And would having a recip table with multiple styles on a page with gallery links make the page too busy as opposed to just text links for the recips? I'll make a few and submit them and see how it goes. Taking out the warning page is inline with the notion I think I've read on this board that a warning page might not be needed if you're entering one subdirectory from another subdirectory....

secretagentwilly

2008-03-27, 10:25 PM

I just looked at that picture with the recip table on the left...I know that's just a proposed spot, when I was proposing the question, I had an entry link in mind and the relationship to it, but the question still stands if LL owners will want their recip above the content or below it...

fresh

2008-03-27, 10:42 PM

thats one step closer to galleries. So sales/conversions one step closer to galleries.

Useless

2008-03-27, 11:28 PM

annie_cash

2008-03-27, 11:31 PM

I dont really understand either how this would be better for the submitters but Im not an expert (at anything). Besides, my earnings from freesites get lower and lower everyday so I would give it a try (of course all the mayor LL would have to accept it too)
And my own LL would accept the new sites too

2008-03-28, 12:15 AM

With the third gallery you would still have 4 pages to put ads on...but I'm not sure if that means more free content given away...not good, imo. Perhaps we could put fewer pics/movies per page to keep total content used the same...(?)

No real problems for me either building or listing. One thing that bugs me in the post above is "content can be accessed in 2 clicks instead of three"...is that a good thing? That makes it easier to get the free stuff..|huh

NY Jester

2008-03-28, 01:50 AM

I actually like Preachers version a bit more. I think if the index page is kept with a small blurb of Warning Text either seen fully or placed in a scroll box wouldnt hurt anything.

I also dont see how it would help mirroring..as you can only add so many LL links to whatever front page is used.

In regard to Lusciouses comments...would if feesible to create a free site in the version

Main Page
Gallery 1 10 pics or 2 vids
Gallery 2 10 pics or 2 vids
Gallery 3 10 pics or 2 vids

keeping the 3 sponsor out link max per page

SheepGuy

2008-03-28, 02:14 AM

I like it. I like it a lot!
When I first started building free sites (way back when, not in the last few years) it wasn't so regimented and they all didn't look the same. Any ideas that will allow a little more creativity are fine by me, and might even convince me to build fs's again.
Whether I do or not I'll definitely list free sites that don't fit the standard warning-main-gallery1-gallery2 grind. I'm listing some galleries now because the free site model is boring to me, and I would imagine it's boring to surfers as well.
I believe it is time for some free-thinking, and some changes to the rigid rules so many LL's live by.
Shit, if somebody was to send me a site made up of 3 galleries with no warning page I'd list it.

Licker4U

2008-03-28, 02:18 AM

We often say that most sales are attributed to the index and main pages of a free site, but how many of us are saying that because we read it somewhere?

I don't say it because I read it somewhere, I say it because from my stats that's the way it is. If anyone wants to see my stats I can copy and paste them into a PM. I want an index page and a main page....

2008-03-28, 05:59 AM

PS. Read initial discussion on Master-X here (russian text) (http://www.master-x.com/forum/topics/99826/)

I thought the main idea of that thread was no-mirror site with 1-link resips on it. This is how they were going to improve SEO.

NY Jester

2008-03-28, 06:06 AM

Maybe both formats could be listed..just as a test run? Im not saying run amuck, but what if there were a few acceptable ways to build FS's I mean galleries have different criteria with number of thumbs, out links sizes etc.

Simon

2008-03-28, 07:41 AM

Just a stray thought...

If the LL rules allowed for 3-page sites, and if 3-page sites (and only 3-page sites) were allowed 4 outgoing links per page instead of the usual 3 links, then the amount of total outgoing links would be the same on a 3-page free site as on a 4-page free site.

bluebrit

2008-03-28, 08:25 AM

Personally speaking I have always included the ICRA header to every FS I have built, so that's nothing new to me. In fact I assumed most people did this as a matter of course and my sales appear to be on par with everyone else’s.

Using Google as an example. They appear to penalize a FS because of its lack of updating. That and the obvious keywords, similar free content, and the once it’s built its forgotten marketing strategy used by everybody.

This more than anything appears to me, to be the main reason for lowered sales by any FS built and as a kick on, lowered sales to LL owners because of these static sites.

Because of this I doubt the proposed design will alter that much, although it will help while search engines try to catch up with what were doing differently. Once they understand the new format I think we will be back to square one again.

As a suggestion, it may that two or three agreed upon FS formats should be used so that there is a greater difference in design. That at least would slow down se’s from taking them out of their main listings so quickly.

Another suggestion would be to grant the ability to trusted webmasters by LL owners, the right to update the galleries and text on a FS, which would help to keeping them listed on major search engines due to the constantly changing content. Updating FS pages should also improve the LL page listings as well.

Once a change has been made the FS should be flagged by the submitter so that the changes can be checked by the LL owner. As a trusted submitter, this could be done by using a special email address.

CrazySy

2008-03-28, 09:00 AM

Free sites is a bad quality site in therms of Google because:
1) They never updates.
2) Text content duplicates many times and equal texts of hundreds other free sites.
3) They don't have new incoming links after initial listing in Link Sites.How would removing index page change any of these?

Free site is a bad quality site in therms of Surfers because:
1) They have bad usability: surfer must click 3 times to see the gallery (warning page -> main page -> gallery).
2) They have small content amount (2-3 galleries)A freesite is a mini tour for sponsor with the exception of getting more free samples. I'd go back to submitting galleries if I just want to hand them the content. I can use the content for a freesite (new suggested format) and build 3 galleries.

You know what a bad quality site is? A bad quality site is the ones you can read the text 3 or 4 times, and still can't figure out what the fuck it means. A bad quality sites is, using crappy colors and over compressed thumbs/images.......

This does not benefit the submitter one bit. I stayed up late last night to look at some numbers and here is what I get:

Sales from my freesites index page 49%
Sales from my freesites main page 38%
Sales from my freesites first gallery 9%
Sales from my freesites second gallery 4%

If I have to give up 50% of my income to make link list owners happy, I'll give up on the link list.

However, as a submitter I agree with a change. Why not allow the site to be a mix of pics, movies and stories? Why all galleries have to have the same type of content? Link lists strict rules is the reason all the sites look the same. For example, if I build a site for a single model and make a bio page on freesite that has a link to her site, I have to count the link to bio page as an external link because the page does not have content! Link list strict rules limits the creativity to produce different looking sites. They are many many ways to make your site look different without getting rid of the index page.

Have a list of trusted submitters, allow them to use their creativity and build a few sites with completely different structure, evaluate them and if you like their ideas, let them go at it and keep building.

Just my 2 cents

Useless

2008-03-28, 09:05 AM

I don't say it because I read it somewhere, I say it because from my stats that's the way it is. If anyone wants to see my stats I can copy and paste them into a PM. I want an index page and a main page....If you have separate ad campaigns running on your index and main pages than you have on your gallery pages, which is the only way I can think of to know which pages create the sales, then go ahead and show us.

Toby

2008-03-28, 09:09 AM

...Just my 2 cents
I'll add my 2¢ in with CrazySy's, maybe we'll have enough for a Starbuck's after awhile.

Increasing diversity is probably a good goal, but don't let the tail be wagging the dog.

I optimize for sales first and SE second.

Cleo

2008-03-28, 09:10 AM

Most of my sales come from the index page followed by the main page.

Enough said.

Useless

2008-03-28, 09:27 AM

OBAMA '08 It's Time for Change (or something like that)

Most free site builders put ZERO effort in to SEO or effective sales text on any of their pages, so I'm not sure why they'd fight against losing one worthless page of a free site that isn't going to produce sales any better than, or even as good as, a single TGP gallery. The big difference being that TGPs have more traffic. I think people are clinging to a dead concept.

Those of you who have the ability to track sales per page, have you considered why your numbers are the way they are? Do you know that it's because we are going out of our way to make the content difficult to get to, or could it be merely the fact that you've been lucky enough to place a good ad block on the first page that the surfer sees (which you could still do with a different format)?

I hope this thread/debate/argument goes on for awhile. I love it. |thumb

plateman

2008-03-28, 09:52 AM

it's funny, free site builders and harden LL owners are gonna be the first ones to go back to doing what they did before, cause they will not accept change or invent a different model

ponygirl

2008-03-28, 10:01 AM

Well, I'm all for trying something new, more for sales than SE purposes, but whatever works. UW quoted DD a bit back, with 'sales are created by content'. While this seems at odds with most people saying their sales come from the index and main pages, I don't think so.

When you think about it, I'm sure most surfers have seen enough tours to know the general idea now. A lot of new tours all have great quality video samples, big huge pics, 3 or 4 pages etc. If I knew that, I might be inclined to click through to a tour as fast as I can if the first page I saw of the freesite was kinda crappy looking. Maybe that's why I've also been told from many people that ugly freesites sell ;)

anyway, just a thought. I don't know if it would work out or not, but I'd give it a shot.

I really like Simon's idea of 4 links out, too :)

spacemanspiff

2008-03-28, 10:10 AM

Those of you who have the ability to track sales per page, have you considered why your numbers are the way they are? Do you know that it's because we are going out of our way to make the content difficult to get to, or could it be merely the fact that you've been lucky enough to place a good ad block on the first page that the surfer sees (which you could still do with a different format)?

Is it possible that the sales are just coming from the first page the surfer gets to when they click on the link to your freesite, regardless of how good the ads are? Is it possible that it's just a numbers game? I've always thought that's why a lot of FS builders made that claim. I haven't built many freesites so I just don't know.

As for my position on accepting those types of sites, I'll accept pretty much anything I think the surfers would like. And yes, different is good.

I'll even go a step further. If you want to do some testing, how about this. Build a traditional freesite and a 1.5 freesite and submit them both at the same time, and see which sells better. Either pick similar content and submit both sites to the same category, or pick content that can fit into multiple categories. Just hit me up first so I'll know what's going on.

plateman

2008-03-28, 10:11 AM

ponygirl

2008-03-28, 10:16 AM

the reason sales came from the index and main was that most good free site submitters could get the surfers to click before they see the content, and most newer tours had enough content to get sales from the tours

yes, I believe that too. That's why I always put more effort into those pages, which would naturally result in more sales from them (I keep hoping, anyway :D)

2008-03-28, 10:32 AM

the reason sales came from the index and main was that most good free site submitters could get the surfers to click before they see the content, and most newer tours had enough content to get sales from the tours

Hey, I've got an idea...let's lose the galleries completely!

fs 2.0 baby! :D

Greenguy

2008-03-28, 10:57 AM

...I offer one simple rule for discussion:
We accept free sites without warning page if you will add ICRA (http://www.icra.org/) or RTA (http://www.rtalabel.org/) meta tags to your site HTML code....[/url]Kit - you are such a fucking moron that it baffles my mind how you got to where you are now (well, except that you copied an established format, but that's another story)

Follow me for 2 seconds: the RTA label is part of ASACP - we all know this. The ASACP has a list of what they call "industry best practices":
http://www.asacp.org/page.php?content=best_practices
It's a list of things that we, as adult website owners, should follow. One of those things, oddly enough, IS TO HAVE A FUCKING WARNING PAGE. The RTA label is supposed to go on your warning page!

I haven't even read the rest of this thread yet, but I will also say that, while I find my ego being inflated as I type, anyone that is moronic enough to re-invent the LinkList/FreeSite concept without discussing it on this board does not belong in the business.

Gimme 15 & I'll shoot down the rest of your ideas |thumb

Greenguy

2008-03-28, 11:18 AM

This is not a big secret, traffic leave Link Sites last years, especially after Google algo sfiting last 12 motnhs.If you were a Free Site submitter you'd have been banned for Grammar & Spelling Errors :D If you look at all the major Link Lists over the last 5+ years, it's almost all ebbs & flows. Sometimes we're high, sometimes we're low. It's always been like this & I assume that it always will. I say "assume" because, like everyone else reading this thread, I don't know what Google's really doing. I just base what I assume on what's happened in the past. My bet is that you have never had the bottom fall out. You've never lost 96.67% of his search engine traffic. My suggestion to you is to ride it out. Stop assuming that it's everyone else's site & that everyone else has to change to better you.

...Free sites is a bad quality site in therms of Google because:
1) They never updates.
2) Text content duplicates many times and equal texts of hundreds other free sites.
3) They don't have new incoming links after initial listing in Link Sites....
1 - Your idea doesn't have pages that update either.
2 - Your idea will still have mirror sites with different recips.
3 - Your idea does not have new incoming links either.

...Benefits:
1) There is no reason to keep warning page if you add special meta tags to HTML code.
2) Therefore free site layout become more usefull for surfing. Content can be accessed by two clicks instead 3 clicks before.
3) Decrease free sites mirroring...
1 - I've shot that down already.
2 - why not remove the main page & just link to the galleries? OH wait.....
3 - See 2 above.

....PS. Read initial discussion on Master-X here (russian text) (http://www.master-x.com/forum/topics/99826/)Oh Yeah! Invite a group of English speaking webmasters to jump into a discussion on a foreign language board. Another BRILLIANT fucking idea |thumb

(my spell-checker went off 5 times - 4 times I had to hit "ignore")

Sergeyka

2008-03-28, 11:42 AM

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

Follow me for 2 seconds: the RTA label is part of ASACP - we all know this. The ASACP has a list of what they call "industry best practices":
http://www.asacp.org/page.php?content=best_practices
It's a list of things that we, as adult website owners, should follow. One of those things, oddly enough, IS TO HAVE A FUCKING WARNING PAGE. The RTA label is supposed to go on your warning page!

I haven't even read the rest of this thread yet, but I will also say that, while I find my ego being inflated as I type, anyone that is moronic enough to re-invent the LinkList/FreeSite concept without discussing it on this board does not belong in the business.

Gimme 15 & I'll shoot down the rest of your ideas |thumb

TGP gallery without warning page |badidea|
This format
http://thepurelinks.com/tmp/f2.gif

without mirrors and submit in 30-50 LL's

Greenguy

2008-03-28, 11:50 AM

Interesting. But will everyone else accept fs 1.5?...Everyone? No. But I'm also betting that ZERO Link List owners that frequent this board will accept them either.

All this does is knock out one whole page of ads and possible sales....That's always been one of the selling points of building Free Sites.

I don't understand how is this going to "Decrease free sites mirroring"...It doesn't. Assuming that everyone changed, you'd still have the same number of mirrors, but now it's main page mirrors instead of warning page mirrors.

...This is a great idea and a great discussion. I *think* even |greenguy| himself may have said that the free site has needed to be revamped for quite some time.I was thinking more along the lines of 3 & 4 gallery Free Sites (and if my mind was normal, I'd have suggested that a year ago)

I like the idea of streamlining freesite navigation, especially from a linklists perception...Have you surfed your Free Sites lately? |couch|

...I like the idea of having to put the tags in there...That's the ONLY good idea Kit has.

I like it. I like it a lot!
When I first started building free sites (way back when, not in the last few years) it wasn't so regimented and they all didn't look the same. Any ideas that will allow a little more creativity are fine by me, and might even convince me to build fs's again.
Whether I do or not I'll definitely list free sites that don't fit the standard warning-main-gallery1-gallery2 grind. I'm listing some galleries now because the free site model is boring to me, and I would imagine it's boring to surfers as well.
I believe it is time for some free-thinking, and some changes to the rigid rules so many LL's live by.
Shit, if somebody was to send me a site made up of 3 galleries with no warning page I'd list it.How does going from warning-main-gallery1-gallery2 to main-gallery1-gallery2-gallery3 allow for more creativity? If anything, it's a decrease in creativity, as you are removing a page that is designed very differently from the other 3 & adding another copy of the gallery template.

...Most free site builders put ZERO effort in to SEO or effective sales text on any of their pages...WAIT! HOLD THE PHONE! After reading that & then re-reading Kit's post, I have a new way of thinking! Kit's not worried about his SE traffic. He's worried about YOURS! Think about it. He's not changing the structure of his Link List, he's asking you to change so that you get more hits from Google! Well fuck me! Kit deserves a metal or some other prestigious award. Putting all Free Site builders ahead of himself, tracking the listings of Free Sites in Google for years & years & years & coming up with this fantastic concept! I think everyone should bow down & kiss the ground that Kit walks on! B-R-A-V-O!

(excuse me while I throw up)

Back to Useless's statement - Kit thinks that his plan will benefit Free Site listings in Google. There is no other way to look at this, as he says "google" or "SE" 5 times in his 1st 7 sentences. And what you put up there about "ZERO effort" is a big part of the problem. People get out what they put in & SE's are no different. If you have all your Free Sites on a domain that are not linked to a hub on the index page, you either have no concern about SE traffic (which is fine) or your not educated enough on SE methods to be worried about it. I use this as one example of MANY things that webmasters can do to better their sites in SE's. Removing one page & adding another to a small area of your network is not going to increase or decrease your SE listings.

Greenguy

2008-03-28, 11:52 AM

TGP gallery without warning page |badidea|
This format
http://thepurelinks.com/tmp/f2.gif

without mirrors and submit in 30-50 LL'sSo you want to put up to 50 recip links on that page?

Sergeyka

2008-03-28, 11:52 AM

Example
http://www.nubiles-girls.com/f/naked-lala-princess/

Free site add in Russian LLs, no mirrors unique text content

Sergeyka

2008-03-28, 11:55 AM

So you want to put up to 50 recip links on that page?
Certainly!
And no mirrors!

Otherwise it is senseless

Licker4U

2008-03-28, 12:07 PM

If you have separate ad campaigns running on your index and main pages than you have on your gallery pages, which is the only way I can think of to know which pages create the sales, then go ahead and show us.

Huh? |huh I don't need seperate ad campaigns to know which pages generate sales. Almost every sponsor I promote gives the referring URL when a sale is made. TCG shows I had 4 sales from index pages and one from a main page. No ad campaign needed:

http://www.best-wet-pussy.com/babe/fuck-and-squirt/ 1 0 0
http://www.best-wet-pussy.com/clean/squirting-teen/ 1 0 0
http://www.best-wet-pussy.com/babes/her-pussy-squirts/ 1 0 0
http://www.best-wet-pussy.com/clean/her-pussy-squirts/ 1 0 0
http://www.best-wet-pussy.com/babe/squirting-female-orgasm/main.html 1 0 0

From checking a few months ago I know that about 90% of my sales come from the index page so naturally I don't want to lose it.

When sponsors let me set up ad campaigns I use that for my referral links on my link lists so I'll know that a sale came from the link list.

Greenguy

2008-03-28, 12:12 PM

Example
http://www.nubiles-girls.com/f/naked-lala-princess/

Free site add in Russian LLs, no mirrors unique text contentThere's 36 recip links on there - you have just eliminated ONE page from the internet |bananna|

What happens if I have 72 Link Lists on my submit list? 2 mirrors instead of 4?

If I made 2 warning pages with 18 recips (very common) what makes you think that Google would even notice? Most of the page will look very different, as 18 recips take up a lot of space/coding on a page.

And why do you assume that Free Site builders are not smart enough to change around the coding on "mirror" pages so that the coding doesn't look exactly the same?

I can sit here all day & shoot down this idea.

Useless

2008-03-28, 12:20 PM

Huh? |huh I don't need seperate ad campaigns to know which pages generate sales. Almost every sponsor I promote gives the referring URL when a sale is made. TCG shows I had 4 sales from index pages and one from a main page. No ad campaign needed:

http://www.best-wet-pussy.com/babe/fuck-and-squirt/ 1 0 0
http://www.best-wet-pussy.com/clean/squirting-teen/ 1 0 0
http://www.best-wet-pussy.com/babes/her-pussy-squirts/ 1 0 0
http://www.best-wet-pussy.com/clean/her-pussy-squirts/ 1 0 0
http://www.best-wet-pussy.com/babe/squirting-female-orgasm/main.html 1 0 0

From checking a few months ago I know that about 90% of my sales come from the index page.Actually, that's not true. Many of those referrers are due to the surfer clicking through, possibly even accidentally, to the tour from the index of a free site and getting cookied and/or starting a tracking session. That doesn't mean they were sold. They probably returned instantly to your free site, enjoyed your galleries, and then clicked back to the tour to check it out more thoroughly.

Your server stats will also tell you that your index pages get a lot more traffic than any other page of a free site. That's because a lot of surfers hit a free site, say, "what the hell is this slop?" and go somewhere else. Reading stats and understanding what you are reading are two different things. It's far more complicated than what people like to think.

Sergeyka

2008-03-28, 12:21 PM

It is necessary to believe

To criticize always it is easy :)

koalaTalex

2008-03-28, 12:26 PM

If you have separate ad campaigns running on your index and main pages than you have on your gallery pages, which is the only way I can think of to know which pages create the sales, then go ahead and show us.

My sponsors track which page the sale comes from so I know exactly which page the surfer signed up from. The ratio of 49% being index sounds about right to me and the main, gallery1 & gallery2 percentages posted above seem pretty accurate with our results as well.

I am always open to change, change is good, but of course I need to know how all my LL owners feel about this before making any such changes, their traffic is after all what is paying the bills.

I agree that LL rules make all our free sites look the same, we change the colours, style, content, etc. but with so many rules it's hard to keep things looking "new" and "original".

Useless

2008-03-28, 12:27 PM

WAIT! HOLD THE PHONE! After reading that & then re-reading Kit's post, I have a new way of thinking! Kit's not worried about his SE traffic. He's worried about YOURS! Think about it. He's not changing the structure of his Link List, he's asking you to change so that you get more hits from Google!Sounds great to me. I'm sold. :D

All I'm saying is that the topic playing with the format is worthy of discussion. I don't agree with Kit's SEO assertions, but I'm also not certain that I'm fully comprehending it. I'm not an SEO. The idea of altering the free site has been put on the table a few times and you, my sexy green friend, have had quite a few ideas yourself. You just haven't gone public with them. If you do, please post them in English so that I can read them. ;)

Greenguy

2008-03-28, 12:38 PM

...Free site add in Russian LLs, no mirrors unique text contentBefore we go any further, I think we need to hear from the French Link List & Free Site Coalition as well.

|virgohippy|

It is necessary to believe

To criticize always it is easyNo, it's not. See, over here, we have this thing called Freedom Of Speech and while it's not a perfect system, we do have the right to question what we do not agree with & not just blindly follow what we are told is right.

...All I'm saying is that the topic playing with the format is worthy of discussion. I don't agree with Kit's SEO assertions, but I'm also not certain that I'm fully comprehending it. I'm not an SEO. The idea of altering the free site has been put on the table a few times and you, my sexy green friend, have had quite a few ideas yourself. You just haven't gone public with them. If you do, please post them in English so that I can read them. ;)I do have ideas & I really wish this sleep apnea thing didn't run (and ruin) my life for the last 12 months, otherwise I know I'd have brought them up for discussion.

Sergeyka

2008-03-28, 12:40 PM

There's 36 recip links on there - you have just eliminated ONE page from the internet |bananna|

What happens if I have 72 Link Lists on my submit list? 2 mirrors instead of 4?

If I made 2 warning pages with 18 recips (very common) what makes you think that Google would even notice? Most of the page will look very different, as 18 recips take up a lot of space/coding on a page.

And why do you assume that Free Site builders are not smart enough to change around the coding on "mirror" pages so that the coding doesn't look exactly the same?

I can sit here all day & shoot down this idea.

Greenie!
To add a rule for free site 1.5
1. Minimum 40 other LLs
2. Free site (main page - index.html) created domain.com/free-site/index.html and gallery only gallery1.html (index1.html) and gallery2.html (index2.html) page.
Other pages In other folders - decline

In a result - 100% no MIRRORS :)

koalaTalex

2008-03-28, 12:49 PM

Actually, that's not true. Many of those referrers are due to the surfer clicking through, possibly even accidentally, to the tour from the index of a free site and getting cookied and/or starting a tracking session. That doesn't mean they were sold. They probably returned instantly to your free site, enjoyed your galleries, and then clicked back to the tour to check it out more thoroughly.

I read this after I posted my reply Useless, you know more about this than me for sure. I have always noticed how many sales I get from the index page but never thought more of it then the surfer signing up from the index page.

Gimme 15 & I'll shoot down the rest of your ideas |thumb

Knew I could count on you |greenguy| Kit - GG drama is the best |popcorn|

I hope this thread/debate/argument goes on for awhile. I love it. |thumb

Threads like this sure get us thinking outside the box and generating some new ideas we may not have had otherwise.

Greenguy's traffic is exceptional, I have to follow more specific rules to get accepted at LOR but it is well worth it. :D

2008-03-28, 12:49 PM

Licker4U

2008-03-28, 12:58 PM

That doesn't mean they were sold. They probably returned instantly to your free site, enjoyed your galleries, and then clicked back to the tour to check it out more thoroughly.

While I agree this can happen I really don't think a surfer is going to leave all the goodies at the tour to return to my site just to see my pics, then go back and buy.

Your server stats will also tell you that your index pages get a lot more traffic than any other page of a free site. That's because a lot of surfers hit a free site, say, "what the hell is this slop?" and go somewhere else.

Well of course they get more traffic because that's the very first page they land on when they click a link at a link list. And yes, I'm sure many say "WTF is this crap?" and leave.

Greenguy

2008-03-28, 01:14 PM

Greenie!
To add a rule for free site 1.5
1. Minimum 40 other LLs
2. Free site (main page - index.html) created domain.com/free-site/index.html and gallery only gallery1.html (index1.html) and gallery2.html (index2.html) page.
Other pages In other folders - decline

In a result - 100% no MIRRORS :)You quote my entire post, yet you answer none of the questions I asked |thumb

And I see another rabbit that Kit neglected to mention - 1st it was 30-50 recip links, now it's the ever popular myth that index.html is the best page name in the world! Maybe next Kit will "suggest" that all Free Sites should be based in the root of the domain |huh

HarryM

2008-03-28, 01:23 PM

I thought the main idea of that thread was no-mirror site with 1-link resips on it. This is how they were going to improve SEO.

That one sounds better to me, but what do I know. I've never been with linklist at #1 keyword porn.

Just guessing stuff here.. A recip table in google's eyes might look a bit artificial? Who in their right mind would naturally link to 12 or so site's and their respective category pages. Inside tables upon tables, and all on the one page.

Maybe something that would help free sites and link lists overall is to move away from using tables in general (they are meant for data, like DB tables, not for designing), stop with the category recips, use valid html and even though it's pointless with porn media, try for some accessibilty.

Not writing complete jibberish might help too:
http://www.nubiles-girls.com/f/naked-lala-princess/
"this baby never misses a chance to please her naughty mind and hungry body with a masturbation action"

What's the point of it all if this is the end product?

Greenguy

2008-03-28, 01:49 PM

...Not writing complete jibberish might help too:
http://www.nubiles-girls.com/f/naked-lala-princess/
"this baby never misses a chance to please her naughty mind and hungry body with a masturbation action"

What's the point of it all if this is the end product?I just re-read some of the "sales text" as well - nothing like describing popping a cherry in detail :D

I recommend you a site which specializes on photo and video materials of real virgins. They find them and photograph them hymens close up, record on video the defloration actions after which defloration blood is visible.

swedguy

2008-03-28, 01:59 PM

We often say that most sales are attributed to the index and main pages of a free site, but how many of us are saying that because we read it somewhere?

Since I love numbers, I'll throw some in to the discussion :)

I pulled some stats for 2006 and 2008, just to display the difference in CTR. Numbers are from the same domain (amateur niche) and between January 1 and March 28.

Average CTR for 2008:
index: 1.8%
main: 7.6%
gallery 1: 7.9%
gallery 2: 8.8%

Average CTR for 2006:
index: 4.6%
main: 1.9%
gallery 1: 5.2%
gallery 2: 3.0%

Useless

2008-03-28, 02:44 PM

And yes, I'm sure many say "WTF is this crap?" and leave.I do that with about 3/4 of the sites I review. :D

As far the 30-40 recips and no mirrors concept goes, I'm not sure I like that. If we do that, we may as well start listing blogs. Oh yeah, we already do that. :D

I like the idea of having the gallery navigation on the index. I really do. And I'm beginning to better understand the no mirror/SEO thing. Of course, I only ever submit to 12-15 lists with no mirrors anyway, so that wouldn't help my 10 free sites per year.

I plan on building a few more sites in a few weeks and I wouldn't mind seeing some changes before I start building.

swedguy

2008-03-28, 04:08 PM

First time I only got to UW's post. But now I read the whole thing.

Instead of posting stats, I should have brought beer and peanuts!

CrazySy

2008-03-28, 04:46 PM

I think I am going to try and make a sample freesite v2.01 sometime this weekend :D I make sure to ask "Who would list this site" for a good |catfight|

Greenguy

2008-03-28, 05:11 PM

Example
http://www.nubiles-girls.com/f/naked-lala-princess/

Free site add in Russian LLs, no mirrors unique text content

Greenie!
To add a rule for free site 1.5
1. Minimum 40 other LLs
2. Free site (main page - index.html) created domain.com/free-site/index.html and gallery only gallery1.html (index1.html) and gallery2.html (index2.html) page.
Other pages In other folders - decline

In a result - 100% no MIRRORS :)The example links to 36 Link Lists in the "recip" area. Is there a term for someone who tries to prove a point with incorrect examples?

****

So, now that I have taken a nice 2 hour nap & thought things over, let me sum everything up for Kit to comment on when he returns:
1 - Nothing Kit posted makes sense or changes anything that is always in place, except the removal of the warning page (which is called "a good faith effort" by ASACP)
2 - The hidden aspects of this - as alluded to by Sergeyka - are Free Sites where the 1st page is named index.html & has 40+ recip links on the left hand side of the main table.

Did I miss anything?

Greenguy

2008-03-28, 05:13 PM

Oops! How come it's Free Sites 1.5, but Link List 2, which was a Free Site version of TGP2, failed miserably 7 years ago? |huh|crazy||badidea|

swedguy

2008-03-28, 05:23 PM

Greenie, you should star in Chainsaw Massacre 3.0 ;)

DangerDave

2008-03-28, 06:25 PM

GG speaks for me on this one...

Free sites primary use is NOT SEO .. and if you think they are.. you need to go do some reading.....

As has been said.. Nothing has changed, the same static pages, in the same order, still not updated..

Oh wait.. one thing may have changed...

If you submit this type of site to PenisBot etc.. It would move THIER recips further "up" your page, making them one of the first things an SE robot will find and making "THEM" more important.. than the rest of your page...

So.... after having destroyed you page with BS spammy keyword recips, you would make the first links "off" the page the most important things...

Here is an easier way.... Find a gun, aim it at your foot, and pull the trigger...

DD

borgivan

2008-03-28, 06:52 PM

I'd try to clarify a pair of moments. Shortcomings that Kit pointed to, are realy far from this format, just because it is just test. Nobody can formulate the rules and say, "YEH, THEY ARE COOL, AND WILL WORK!", so this discussion has the main aim to make your brain to work on the problem of LL slow death. I'm sure that many FS posters has there own experience and observations about SEO and usability of FS, everyone has something to say, like "I have a suggestion, I wanted this feature on FS for 7+ years, but rules fuck my creativity!". But in this discussion practically nobody said so, on russian board there was a great discussion, and the result you see is united thoughts of differen webmasters.
About text. Owners want unique texts on each FS. The easy way is to write the text from FS in quotes in google. If Google says "NO" that is cool, the text is unique and 99% that after a week of listing google will give you ONLY ONE result by the same text, and this will be FS , that submitter posted. You see? This time, LL really gets a link from UNICQUE SITE! +50 links from PR3+ LLs and we have PR2+ UNIQUE FS, link from whish will be minimum 2-3 times better for LL! But it is, IMHO, not only mine.
Then about links, it really seems strange to do them as a blogroll, but it works on blogs, it works on other sites, it is more readable to serfer, than a table of unknown banners or links.
About %s from different pages, whi dont you think that it will be 90%-index/main, and 5 and 5 - galleries? It is necessary to try and then to talk about. This business consists of experiments, suggestions and blether. People who want to experiment - experiment while you are talking shit, and won't tell you about results it it works.
To Greenie, you told you don't know google alhoritms. NOBODY KNOWS ! All SEO is about realisation of observation of SE reactions to this or that changes in site structure and so on. Kit and Co has a GREAT experience and lots of observations, and when he says that it will be better it is not just a thoughts, I think that he is "daddy" in seo and I respect him about this, the same way I respect you as a "LL daddy". So it is your choice what to do with new format, but I think you soon suggest something new, too. Ewerything changes and biz too, we have to adjust to it, so this topic is normal reaction to biz changes. Nothing more to say for now.

CrazySy

2008-03-28, 07:45 PM

^^ Can someone please translate what he said?

SheepGuy

2008-03-28, 07:46 PM

Personally when I build a free site I don't give a rat's ass for SEO, though sometimes I get it.
What interests me the most in this discussion is finding ways to make FS's more interesting, and hopefully more profitable.
I don't build many free sites anymore, because my time makes me more money building galleries and AVS sites, but I used to do very well with different looking free sites, before the standard format became the only way to build.
I like what Persian Kitty lists, very few rules.

2008-03-28, 08:25 PM

^^ Can someone please translate what he said?

The point I understood him to make is that if you do multiple mirrors, only one of the mirrors gets indexed by G because they are duplicate content, so if a site is listed on your linklist, and it is one of the mirrors that does not get indexed, you're screwed from a SEO standpoint. BUT, if you have one site with 50 links on it, you have a unique site and all 50 list get benefit from Googles indexing. And since it's not uncommon for blogs to have 50+ recips, why not freesites?

I'm not saying I agree because I know shit about this stuff, and Greenie has already shot most of it down...but that's just my understanding of what he is saying. |huh

Greenie mentioned a few post up that people can and do change the code and/or text on each mirror (I haven't been doing this, but I will start) then each mirror can get indexed. This does seem to have an advantage in that 2,3,4, or more sites get indexed instead of just one.

Also, Greenie mentioned that the end result is that the list owner gets benefit rather than the freesite builder.

At any rate, interesting thread. I am for anything that would help freesites convert better.

Useless

2008-03-28, 08:51 PM

BUT, if you have one site with 50 links on it, you have a unique site and all 50 list get benefit from Googles indexing. And since it's not uncommon for blogs to have 50+ recips, why not freesites?Hello - exactly! (That's a line from Boogie Nights, btw.) It's worth pondering, at least, for those who still have the ability to think for themselves.

I'm always amazed at how resistant the old guard is to change unless, of course, it was their own idea or their new rule. I could easily shoot down many, if not all, of the contrary points put forth in this thread, but I'm not here to argue with friends. I do suggest that people give a new format some thought. The strangest fact of this whole new idea is that it's being proposed by the owner of a link list who isn't having any traffic problems at all.

DangerDave

2008-03-28, 10:37 PM

I'm always amazed at how resistant the old guard is to change unless, of course, it was their own idea or their new rule. I could easily shoot down many, if not all, of the contrary points put forth in this thread, but I'm not here to argue with friends. I do suggest that people give a new format some thought. The strangest fact of this whole new idea is that it's being proposed by the owner of a link list who isn't having any traffic problems at all.

UW, we aren't resistant to change.. but change for changes sake has never helped anyone....

It is my belief that this new "structure" ISN'T NEW..! As far as I know there is no rule that says you CAN'T link the galleries off the index page.. in fact I know people that do and have done my self...

.. and you can have recips on your 'main' page for many established LL's....

So what is new? Nothing?

Except as I said before..... recips are closer to the top of the page...

DD

murray

2008-03-28, 10:58 PM

Free sites are designed as they are now to whip up the surfer into a frenzy hopefully.

The index page is to wet their tastes and give em a good idea of what the site is.

Once the surfer hits the main page he has a chubby and we hope the banners really start to look good.

Now the gallerys, his hand should be on his cock and and other getting ready for a credit card.

You need to get em warmed up and pumped up. This 1.5 crap is gunna turn surfers off straight away cause they are faced with a barrage of spammy blind link style recips that certain ppl love these days.

Maj. Stress

2008-03-28, 11:51 PM

Borgivan,
Maybe I missed something in the translation on your last post. Are you trying to compare a blog to a free site? The two have nothing in common other than they are pages published on the web.

I have not seen one thing mentioned in this thread that would accomplish what Kit was talking about in his original post.

I think most of us are open to change (as Danger Dave has stated). If you are going to change something make it a positive change. I would like nothing more than to use flash videos (instead of mpg) on html pages with a brief description of the clip and maybe what the full length movie is about along with a link to the sponsor and a link back to the index of my free site. It is doubtful I will ever see that day as people have abused luxuries like that in the past. :(

Useless

2008-03-28, 11:55 PM

As far as I know there is no rule that says you CAN'T link the galleries off the index page.. in fact I know people that do and have done my self...The person whom I think does the most SEO on his free sites does that very thing and it never fails to impress me. It had never occurred to me to do that, or even that I could.

I'm not really sure as to why I've been so slow to understand what the actual SEO purpose was of this "new" format. (It's probably been clearly stated, but I've been mostly skimming the thread and reacting to little bits.) Anyway, the point, I suppose, it to eliminate mirroring. That way, each link list is directly linked to (and from) the page which Google is indexing and giving juice to, instead of the current manner which is pretty much a lottery. Right now, link lists sort of luck in to being on the mirror which Google mysteriously decides is the one to behold.

Like I've said, when I build free sites, I don't mirror. I build a single copy and submit to my select group of lists. So the new format wouldn't benefit me much as a submitter, other than giving me good reason to submit to more places, but I am beginning to see the bigger picture here. I realize that free sites are no great SEO tool. But I am wondering if they could gain some SE love if they were altered in a similar manner as to what's being suggested. Also, even if the new format proved to be only good for link lists themselves, wouldn't that by default be good for the submitters?

Another point - what if the only the index was changed per kit's suggestion, but the main page was left intact? Anyone have feelings on how that would impact lists and free site builders? My idea would be to place the warning and ad blocks on the left side of the page and place a thin column of recip links in blog roll style down the right site. At least that would eliminate mirroring and dupe content. Though honestly, I'm not sure how much you can do for pages that often 2 or 3 directories deep.

JustRobert

2008-03-29, 12:08 AM

BUT, if you have one site with 50 links on it, you have a unique site and all 50 list get benefit from Googles indexing. And since it's not uncommon for blogs to have 50+ recips, why not freesites?

This is the part I like. I submit to around 40 lists so this would allow me to make one entrance and no mirrors. I see no difference in 40 single recip links or 20 dual recip links. Seems like more incoming links for the same amount of outgoing links would be better.

I also do not want to be told where I should put these links, like what has been suggested. If I want to put it on top, left, right, middle or on the bottom (before enter links) it should be allowed. Plus you need to keep single links to the link list title name only (not spammy concoctions), so the size of it all is about the same and hopefully not to overwhelming.

At this time most of my sales do come from the index/warning page, but I seriously contribute this to being the first point of contact to sell the surfer and nothing more. Because of this it does not matter to me if its a 3 or 4 page freesite. I even like the idea of a 2 page freesite. Index/Warning page leads into one big (20 to 40 pic) gallery page. Maybe on the gallery page submitter would be allowed 5 or 6 outgoing links to compensate. I keep my number one page for sales and the surfer has easier access to content for more bookmarks. Just a thought.

HarryM

2008-03-29, 12:17 AM

I would like nothing more than to use flash videos (instead of mpg) on html pages with a brief description of the clip and maybe what the full length movie is about along with a link to the sponsor and a link back to the index of my free site.(

Yeah that would be something. What kind of abuse is possible with action script? If it's pop ups and stuff, you can already do that with a wmv.

Maj. Stress

2008-03-29, 12:39 AM

Yeah that would be something. What kind of abuse is possible with action script? If it's pop ups and stuff, you can already do that with a wmv.

I didn't know you could do that with a wmv. But I don't really spend much time trying to fuck over a future customer.
I didn't really have anything in particular in mind with the abuse. I leave it up to the bathroom gangs around the globe to come up with things like that. :D

LowryBigwood

2008-03-29, 01:38 AM

Goodluck trying to change the established model. As far as I can see, all of the points you mentioned Kit are not validated. I also agree that the purpose of the normal freesite is not intended to be SE friendly as GG and DD stated. Maybe 3-4 years ago, but certainly not today...

Lets just scrap the entire free porn model all together and then we'll really make out? |jester|

KG Gary

2008-03-29, 06:26 AM

From a design point of view, I'd love to see some change allowed in the way I build freesites. After a few hundred, even the most original designs look like overused templates.
Change is welcome as long as we make sure the changes benefit everyone involved as much as possible. I'm not convinced that this new idea does that.

A few questions:

1. What happens to all of those smaller/newer link lists out there that don't make the 40-50 limit? Do we just drop them and the good relationships we've built up?
I'm not happy to do that, sorry.

2. How would a link list owner know if mirrors are created?

3. Can anyone coax Greenguy into sharing his new ideas so we can bounce them around a bit?
:D

I was considering the referring page - sales thing a few days ago when comparing the use of sponsor content to bought content.
From what I could see, using sponsor content on a freesite gets me more sales, although the index page does show as the referring url. That leads me to think that the surfer takes a look at the sponsor straight away, from the first page of my freesite, then returns to my freesite to check out my free samples, and then heads back to the sponsor from a gallery to join if he likes what he sees.
That's what it looks like, but I could be wrong.
|huh

AndyS

2008-03-29, 08:43 AM

As I have said in a few other threads I would love to use flash movies too. Less porn given away (unless the surfer is reasonably tech savy and knows how to grab them) plus more bookmarkers which I think with toolbars ‘sharing’ information on the surfers habits can only been seen as a big vote for that page.

There are possible problems with cheaters but why not for trusted submitters?

I think the idea of updating free sites interesting as from the moment anyone starts building them one of the first things said is just build and forget.

Greenguy

2008-03-29, 10:09 AM

...I'm always amazed at how resistant the old guard is to change unless, of course, it was their own idea or their new rule...If I came up with this idea I'd expect to be bashed around a bit as well. Hell, if anyone knows about taking a bashing because of new rule changes, it's me :D But like DDave said, this seems to be change for the sake of changing & that's never good.

What would these 1.5 sites do in reality?
1 - eliminate the warning page - something that Free Sites & Link Lists were BUILT on. Way back in time, sites like mine & al4a linked to the same type of sites/pages. Somewhere in there, sites like al4a started to link right to the gallery pages & sites like mine started to link to warning pages only. I am NOT saying that I invented any of this, but somewhere in there, TGP & Link Lists were created. The warning page is a massive portion of the Link List & Free Site foundation.
2 - adding more recips - can anyone tell me the rule of thumb for the number of recip links you can put on a warning page? Anyone? Bueller? Frye? The answer is: no one knows :) We've all seen warning pages with 6 recips that look like Gov Patterson placed them on the page & we've all seen sites with 20-30 recips that looked just lovely. Do I think that the rule of thumb should be 40+ recips? No. But for fuck sakes, the left hand cell (ie: the 1st coding the SE spider reads) should not be filled with 40+ blind links!

...3. Can anyone coax Greenguy into sharing his new ideas so we can bounce them around a bit?
:D...Soon :)

***

Kit? Comment?

Simon

2008-03-29, 11:10 AM

for fuck sakes, the left hand cell (ie: the 1st coding the SE spider reads) should not be filled with 40+ blind links!
Absolutely right.

For those who use CSS for laying out pages but may not know how to do this, here's a short article about how to make sure your content is always first (http://www.designersplayground.com/articles/84/1/SEO-Benefits-Of-CSS/Page1.html) in the page source code that the SE spiders read--regardless of the design of the site--followed by things like navigation, banners, recips, etc.

Hope that doesn't ruin anyone's plans.

:)

stuveltje

2008-03-29, 11:13 AM

mmm i have tried those things all when i made free sites years ago, i believe i still have them, just a warning page with link on it right to the galleries (so no main page) then its only one click for the surfers, index pages with the icra, btw there are enough webmasters who build their sites that way. I dont see it as a new rule or a new thing, its up to the reviewer or linksite owner if he will accept it or not, even its not in the rules of the LLs i review i still will accept those sites (already do for years, fi they are not to bad...some are realy bad) but i still go for the old rules, everyone can deside if they wanna change the rules, but i also like the way how some webmasters (free site submitters) think and find a totally different way to make a free site.

ponygirl

2008-03-29, 12:05 PM

well, I assumed that template was just an example, now everyone's talking about having that blogroll style strip of recips on every index page? I knew I should have stayed out of this lol |loony|

I still would want to design my freesites the way I want them, 4 page, 3 page, where the recips go & how many I use, where my ads go etc. I guess it would be better SE wise not to do mirrors, but you're pretty limited as to where you can put 40+ links on a page, the side strip seems to be the only way to do that and still have it look decent. Wouldn't that actually make every freesite look even more the same?

I just thought it'd be fun to shake up the freesite structure a bit, so there's a little variety available to the surfer and the builder I guess.

It's interesting to hear other people's opinions and thoughts, though.

stuveltje

2008-03-29, 12:48 PM

LeRoy

2008-03-29, 01:02 PM

This is very interesting. I am still very new to the freesite game. I do like the idea of 40 recips on the index page. My hosted freesites for my program Lefty's Bucks are on the index page. I should have submitted them to Penis Bot and some others that required the index.html instead.

stuveltje

2008-03-29, 07:37 PM

yes i am gonna try again and who the fuck cares what he/she thinks about me, any page of a free site with a 40 link backs or more like a blog...will never get listed at any linksite, oke at kit"s and maybe 2 or 3 more, now nobody have to keep at any rules made on the net if you talking about free sites and the linksites you are submitting to...well in a certain way then, every linksite may make his own rules and every free site submitter can deside him/herself to submit to what linksite, what i do know is...the old way is there for years (no matter who invented the rules) its to protect you from cheaters and to get bookmarkers at your site....i think those old rules will never changed...they are there for an reason, so well if someone like to have a new rule and list sites with more then 40+ linkbacks, i dont mind...i know why the old rules are there and found out myself, same reason why not every submitted blog is listed either, thats a good example the blogs,( it was metioned at the OTB this eve also, when a blog submitted at the sites i review for, 8 out of 10 submitted blogs i have to go thru 50+linkbacks to find the linkback to the linksite, easy way it get rejected, btw most submitted blogs are all the same.
So i have no trouble with new rules, but the ones who are going to follow those new 1.5 rules, have to keep in mind, they wont get listed at many linksites. But heay you can always try:)

amadman

2008-03-29, 10:06 PM

My linklist is not really active but I know I would never list sites like this. I was one of those that did not allow hardcore on the warning and would not list sites with out warnings.

HarryM

2008-03-29, 11:20 PM

Another thing that might be worth thinking about is if you use 40 recips with their matching categories, that's 80 out-going links on one page. Is that good?

Useless

2008-03-30, 01:01 AM

Another thing that might be worth thinking about is if you use 40 recips with their matching categories, that's 80 out-going links on one page. Is that good?Look at blogs. Hell, look at the amount of outgoing links on link lists, TGPs, any site - hundreds of outgoing links per page. Let's not forget that when you link out to 40+ link lists from your Pr0 warning pages, 40+ indexed and ranked link list category pages are LINKING BACK TO IT. It serves both sides, the submitter and the list owner.

Free site builders should be giving this concept some serious thought. Being allowed to place 40+ recips on a single page would make the average submitter's life so much more simple.

If someone doesn't think that a free site index could or should be a solid SEO page, then why would they care about how many recips you place on it? I really wish more people around here would think about this for awhile and give it some real thought. Think about how SEs might react to one of your free sites if 40+ link lists were linking to it. Yes, 40+ PR pages linking TO your free site, instead of 10-15 linking to a mirror that isn't going to get indexed because it's dupe content. That does you no favors and certainly doesn't do shit for the link lists which are leaking juice to it.

I've been discussing this with other people who agree, at least partially, with this new model. So far, we like the idea of more recips, fewer mirrors. But I think very few people are willing to lose the main page. I personally think a warning page on a free site is nonsense unless it's at the domain's root, but I've always felt that way. If anyone else has some input on furthering this discussion, other than telling me to fuck myself, please post your ideas and questions, or PM me if you wish. We'll probably end up creating a list of link lists which are willing to accept this partially modified model. Outside of a few notable exceptions, I'm betting that most link lists will eventually accept them. If I'm wrong, I'll close submits on my newer, better link list and only list HFS. I swear to the god of your choice.|thumb

Waka-Jawaka

2008-03-30, 01:55 AM

Seems it would be easier to build one freesite with 40-50+ recip links then build several mirrors, especially if it would be one-link recip to LL domain root.
Well, one standart text recip table, no need to make all these mirrors, it may be the reason for fs builders to submit to a bunch of smaller LLs, they never submitted before.
I dont know, if major LLs would appreciate 40+ recip tables, but for smaller LLs it may be a chance to draw more quality freesite builders. No?

HarryM

2008-03-30, 03:01 AM

SheepGuy

2008-03-30, 03:03 AM

As a LL owner I'd love to be in a recip table with 39 other LL's. It would be good for me provided that none of the other recips were of the "Free Porn Here" variety, meaning they couldn't be considered blind links by anyone.
If the only change that comes out of this discussion is that, I'll be a happy dude.
As an occasional fs builder, I don't think about SEO at all when I build, but if I could put 40 recips on a site I'd submit it to 20 more sites than I submit to now.
About the warning page, I'd accept fs's without one, I accept galleries, so why not? As a fs builder I'd like to experiment with fs's without a warning page, but an extra gallery.

I'm open to change that makes sense, not all of kit's ideas makes sense to me, especially re the placement of the recip table, but some of his ideas are worth messing around with.

Maj. Stress

2008-03-30, 03:19 AM

Look at blogs. Hell, look at the amount of outgoing links on link lists, TGPs, any site - hundreds of outgoing links per page. Let's not forget that when you link out to 40+ link lists from your Pr0 warning pages, 40+ indexed and ranked link list category pages are LINKING BACK TO IT. It serves both sides, the submitter and the list owner.

There are huge differences in site structure and linking when comparing free sites to blogs, tgp or link lists. You really need to think about that subject a little more to see the light. Blogs, tgp and link lists are in constant change. Adding pages, adding links, etc. A free site does not. Therefore, it is not treated the same in the search engines eyes.

I have built a few free sites that were text rich and seo'd to the max. I did get good listings in the serps (a few #1) and noticed the link juice dropped as did the listings as they came off the 'new' listings in the link lists.

Did I forget anything?

JohnnyR

2008-03-30, 07:35 AM

I'm confused... What's all the fuss about? Are we supposed to call GG daddy now? Is that it?
the same way I respect you as a "LL daddy"

Ya know, everybody's talking about how this would affect LLs.
WHAT LINKLISTS? THEY'RE ALL GONNA FUCKIN' DIE! Except the top 40 or so. You'd think some people would think twice... Is this really it? Is enough traffic leaking into too many smaller LLs that it's bothering some people out there? Or is it the fact that with mirror pages some folks can't be sure they're gonna be the ones ending up on the page google actually indexes. Or maybe the fact that the links are further down the page, instead of being the FIRST THING the bots see?

So basically what people wanna do is remove a sales page, right? The first one? The one where there's no content to catch the surfer's eye? The one that they actually HAVE to READ the text links on? Wadda ya know! Some of you might just be dirty lil pervs that can't hold their horses 1 click longer to get the pictures afterall. Am I the only one in this for the money? Not to mention it's the warning page the one people want removed - the page on which, not long ago, you weren't even allowed to show a half of dick in the corner of a small banner!!

I'm all for change, but change for a reason, not for the sake of changing. It basically boils down to this: you'd be removing 1 sales page for no (as far as *I* can see) good reason, because someone has to bring up a compelling motive YET!

This will either blow over in a week, either we're gonna have a split, in which case we're gonna see just which way is better! Either way, this smells like trouble for the submitter!

Greenguy

2008-03-30, 09:50 AM

Kit? Comment?

2008-03-30, 10:12 AM

As a LL owner I'd love to be in a recip table with 39 other LL's.

Good point, and this could be of benefit to some of the newer, smaller list if their recip were placed with the big boys.

I have been rejected for having more than 16 recips at a couple of places, however this is rare and probably not a big consideration.

But what if you wanted to submit to more than 40 list...what if it were 100? I guess you're back to making mirrors...either that or have 100 recips per page. I usually submit to 64 to 68 list, so if 40 were the limit, I'd have to drop some or do a mirror, which is something this 1.5 thing is supposed to eliminate..|loony|

Useless

2008-03-30, 10:24 AM

So basically what people wanna do is remove a sales page, right? The first one? The one where there's no content to catch the surfer's eye? The one that they actually HAVE to READ the text links on? Wadda ya know! Some of you might just be dirty lil pervs that can't hold their horses 1 click longer to get the pictures afterall. Am I the only one in this for the money? Not to mention it's the warning page the one people want removed - the page on which, not long ago, you weren't even allowed to show a half of dick in the corner of a small banner!!Don't concern yourself with kit's ideas. Kit hasn't ever returned to the thread to help us understand his points. If changes do happen, I can see only two true changes:
1. We swap out the table of 15 recips for a list of recips of whatever length.
2. Loosened restrictions on the number of ad blocks. The layout of advertisements should be determined by the design of the site, instead of the current manner in which the design is based on a restricted number of ads.
Well, one standart text recip table, no need to make all these mirrors, it may be the reason for fs builders to submit to a bunch of smaller LLs, they never submitted before.
I dont know, if major LLs would appreciate 40+ recip tables, but for smaller LLs it may be a chance to draw more quality freesite builders. No?That's a what couple of us were thinking as well. Those of us who don't want to build mirrors would finally have good reason to submit to many more link lists. There are people who submit to 200+ link lists, and those folks will still have to mirror, but the vast majority of submitters don't go to that extreme.
It could look ok if you didn't have to link to category pages aswell.Your samples are much nicer than the one I was working on. ;) Basically all anyone would be doing with the structure of this happy medium free site is building the same old warning page they have been, but adding a recip column around 150-200px wide to one side or the other, and dropping their current recip table. Can you imagine how nice life would be for those who include their recips via SSI? If they submit to only 50 link lists, they could make global changes by editing only one file.

Did I forget anything?A point. :D

Listen, none of us plan on forcing anyone to change the way in which they build their sites. You aren't going to wake up tomorrow and see that Such and Such Link List now only accepts free sites with 50 other recip links on them. I believe that there is a bunch of submitters who will gladly jump on this slightly altered format and then others will realize how stupid it is to mirror when they can build just the single site and submit that everywhere rather than screwing around with mirrors.

Maybe this enlarged recip grouping will help reduce the sting the next time submitters are told that they must include more content to be listed. That's on the horizon. Of course, not from me. I still accept free sites built with 20 screen caps. |thumb

Useless

2008-03-30, 10:50 AM

From a design point of view, I'd love to see some change allowed in the way I build freesites. After a few hundred, even the most original designs look like overused templates.
Change is welcome as long as we make sure the changes benefit everyone involved as much as possible. I'm not convinced that this new idea does that.

A few questions:

1. What happens to all of those smaller/newer link lists out there that don't make the 40-50 limit? Do we just drop them and the good relationships we've built up?
I'm not happy to do that, sorry.

2. How would a link list owner know if mirrors are created?I'm sorry I missed this earlier. (I've appointed myself the official spokesman for the campaign of modifying kit's modifications.)

1. I assume that those of you who submit to more than whatever the mysterious cut-off limit will be, will need to continue mirroring their sites. Fortunately, you'll have to create fewer mirrors.
2. Link list owners won't know who is mirroring anymore than they do now. But there is the presumption that many submitters would no longer need to mirror simply because they don't submit to that many lists.

I also realize that there are many, many submitters who have spent an enormous amount of time gathering and building recip tables and they aren't going to be very happy about tossing away all of that hard work. Therefore, any transition to a changed format should happen slowly, like evolution, rather than an overnight swap out.

LATE EDIT: Here's a basic mock-up of an index page. http://www.theactusreus.com/schlampe/test.html Assume that the rest of the free site would be business as usual. Who is harmed or hindered by that?

CrazySy

2008-03-30, 11:56 AM

LATE EDIT: Here's a basic mock-up of an index page. http://www.theactusreus.com/schlampe/test.html Assume that the rest of the free site would be business as usual. Who is harmed or hindered by that?Are you a freaking mind reader? |angry| :D

I am just finishing a site with similar layout index page (but with only 18 recips :D) |catfight|

amadman

2008-03-30, 12:12 PM

I personally think a warning page on a free site is nonsense unless it's at the domain's root, but I've always felt that way. If anyone else has some input on furthering this discussion.....

Here were my thoughts on linking to the warning page:

Sure I already had a warning page on my site so my links may not have needed a warning too. But by linking to the warning pages I am pointing the SE's to the warning page also and giving it the most weight. I guess you could say I felt a responsibility to do so. If the SE wants to index and list things through out the site then that is its issue to deal with.

As for recips, why limit people to just one way to put recips when the current model allows that way and many others?

amadman

2008-03-30, 12:19 PM

Other than the hardcore banner and the jibberish text I would have listed sites like this http://www.theactusreus.com/schlampe/test.html

If the recips were LL titles and not a bunch of blind links. And the rest of the site was clean.

LeRoy

2008-03-30, 12:29 PM

Mateusz

2008-03-30, 01:10 PM

First of all...as a link list owner I wouldnt mind listing such free sites but as a free site builder I'd never build one.
Most posted arguments pro new free site formula are just bullshit

1) they still wont be updated, and still will be mirrored by those who submit to more than 40 (or whatever number) link lists

2) it wont be any easier for submiters, why should it?
From what I'm seeing more and more free site submiters are using recip table generarots anyway, and those who build by hand (like me) most likely dont give a rats ass if they need to copy all recips onto one page or three.
I noticed many submitters are just changing headers, autogenerating recip tables and submiting - no wonders search engines treat these sites (especially code of the recips which are always in the same order and place) as spam, but I've checked my stats and...
I have different domain for most niches I submit; so far I have 8-12 free sites (submited over two years) on each domain and each domain got 50-650 se hits in march. Some will say thats not much but multiple it by 12 months and 20+ domains and you will get a decent number - definately worth an effort to put some heart in those free sites.

But I also see huge potential benefit
Let's not forget that when you link out to 40+ link lists from your Pr0 warning pages, 40+ indexed and ranked link list category pages are LINKING BACK TO IT. It serves both sides, the submitter and the list owner.

But instead of 40+ recips I belive it would be much better for both sites if submiter placed ONE SINGLE recip link on domain root, allowing him submiting as many free sites from this domain as he wants.
Now that should help getting better rank in se for both
-reducing outgoing links on the free site,
-gaining some decent link backs for LL owner
and finally... making submiters life much easier.

Actually thats the idea I've been working on since a while - I've re-written all my scripts and I'll be allowing such recips real soon.

HarryM

2008-03-30, 01:35 PM

JohnnyR

2008-03-30, 01:37 PM

Yeah I've seen the examples. It still looks like change for the sake of changing to me.

People are now and have always been bitching about how limited they are with their designs, that all their sites look the same etc. I for one fail to see how having to cram more stuff on 1 page will give anyone more design options... if anything you'll have less space to move stuff around. If one doesn't have imagination now, it's hardly likely they'll gain anything by the new format either. Who said not to arrange all the recips in a single column with the old format? I've done it, others have done it... it was perfectly acceptable before as well.

I just don't know... It doesn't look good to me, not from a submitters' pov and not from a LL owner's one either. I mean... look: UW, since you're playing "devil's advocate" (I know, I know, you really belive in this). But you have 2 LLs, right? Do you think they'd both make the 40 cut? Because I'm tellin ya, all the people that you actually want submitting to you are now submitting to 60 or maybe 80 LLs, and they're not gonna mirror anymore if with the new rules. They're just gonna drop the "dead weight" and the "reciprocical" submits. So are you willing to pull out your gun and pull the trigger on whichever one of your LLs doesn't make it? Am I the only one seeing A LOT of LLs going under with this? And, ironically, I'm seeing that Greenie and MML and the other top dogs that don't have to worry about it are the ones fighting to keep them alive, while their owners are throwing celebratory designs around the board!

It's about time someone sums this up, and since kit dropped the bomb and left leaving us to fight amongst ourselves, I'm voting UW - cuz he said he could shut down our points but he just doesn't wanna argue with friends. Well I don't think anyone will consider it arguing. We just need to draw a line and check out the pros and the cons and see if the gain is worth the trouble, cuz there's something stinky here and I don't think it's just because Mateusz's feet smell :D

BTW, I REALLY like Mateusz's idea of placing 1 link on the root of the domain and be done with it!

JustRobert

2008-03-30, 01:55 PM

LATE EDIT: Here's a basic mock-up of an index page. http://www.theactusreus.com/schlampe/test.html Assume that the rest of the free site would be business as usual. Who is harmed or hindered by that?

I made up a similiar example last night from a recent site I built that had links down the right side to 12 LL's. The single recip would have allowed me to put 40 in the same area. I like the idea. Only negative is that there may be less recip hits coming across which may be a problem for some.

As for recips, why limit people to just one way to put recips when the current model allows that way and many others?
I agree and did a test with what most do with their recips, including myself, which is a 4x4 table. If you do 1x4 with 10 down each it can be the same is size.

If the recips were LL titles and not a bunch of blind links.
This one I really like. No spammy blind link stuff, which I have been guilty of myself. Just a link to your actual domain name with or without the .com at the end for those that want it. All their spammy stuff can be placed in a title tag. This I think would make it even across the board and stop the problems that MML has discussed with recips getting way out of hand with blind links and third party links snuck in.

The rest of the freesite as UW stated can be business as usual. Or it can even be changed to a 2, 3, 4 or however many pages Greenie and the rest of the top dogs want just as long as the warning page stays.

Tekster

2008-03-30, 02:00 PM

...LATE EDIT: Here's a basic mock-up of an index page. http://www.theactusreus.com/schlampe/test.html Assume that the rest of the free site would be business as usual. Who is harmed or hindered by that?

UW, so what is the difference between that and what we are doing now, besides the number of recips?
So, instead of having 20 recips on a warning page we are going to allow up to 40? Well if we do that why not up to 80 and have two columns?

Is this what it comes down to now? Just the number of recips on the warning page?

Mateusz

2008-03-30, 02:06 PM

There's a few sites around that allow that now, porn-xxx-porn.com is one I submit to, has good traffic too.
I like that model, if you can keep track of the non-recipricol recips that's great, hope your script works out.

One thing to consider, some people have just an FPA or a pile of crap on their index though, would they get the same treatment as someone with an actual decent site?

Yeah I know thats neither new idea, nor mine. (as far as I remember) Jell was allowing such recips couple of years ago - I never submited a single site but I like the idea.

When it comes to FPA on index.. well... to be honest didn't think of it yet but I guess everyone who takes the time to build quality free sites and not just copy same template without any keywords will take a minute to at least put some links on index so the se can grab them. Most likely it wont be a problem for me.

By the time I'll be finally implementing new scripts I'll be switching to partner only anyway and I'll definately cut those crappy submits I'm currently getting - generated with chameleon submitter where I'm groupped with sites that all belong to one owner and/or his bathroom gang

Useless

2008-03-30, 03:31 PM

But instead of 40+ recips I belive it would be much better for both sites if submiter placed ONE SINGLE recip link on domain root, allowing him submiting as many free sites from this domain as he wants.
Now that should help getting better rank in se for both
-reducing outgoing links on the free site,
-gaining some decent link backs for LL owner
and finally... making submiters life much easier.I think domain root links may work very well for small link lists, like my own. But the larger lists would prefer quantity over quality, and I _think_ that actually serves them better SEO-wise. Each model has different needs. Unfortunately, the one example we have to go by, Jel's link list, didn't become anymore successful than most small start-ups.

One thing to keep in mind is that if you were using category recips on a free site and submitting it to 15-20 link lists, you are already accustomed to having 30-40 outgoing links on your index, not including ad links.

My best guess right now is that if any change does happen, there will be two types of link lists. Ones who only accept the current model and ones that will accept both. Those link list owners who appear to be open to the idea of the modified index also seem to like the idea of having a more favorable balance between content and advertising rather than a 3 links out rule. In other words, as long as the advertising doesn't over-power or conceal the content, there wouldn't be a specified restriction as to the number of ads.

Is this what it comes down to now? Just the number of recips on the warning page?Well, it was. But now it's becoming more of a revamp and change in policy. All of this may go nowhere, so don't worry too much. ;)

If anyone has any suggestions, please PM me or email me - webmaster AT maladaptedmedia.com

BuZzZ

2008-03-30, 05:56 PM

|thumb|thumb

Mateusz

2008-03-30, 08:03 PM

I think domain root links may work very well for small link lists, like my own. But the larger lists would prefer quantity over quality, and I _think_ that actually serves them better SEO-wise.
Actually big LLs are on a win win position since most submitters group recips by traffic/seo rank (not always but most times both go together) and IMO these mirrors have the highest chance (if any) to get ranked in SE

My best guess right now is that if any change does happen, there will be two types of link lists. Ones who only accept the current model and ones that will accept both. .
Yeah, I think its the most possible scenario. There used to be TGPs, LLs, AVSs, TGP2s and lately blogs popped up, I think there is still some place left for another type of sites.

Those link list owners who appear to be open to the idea of the modified index also seem to like the idea of having a more favorable balance between content and advertising rather than a 3 links out rule. In other words, as long as the advertising doesn't over-power or conceal the content, there wouldn't be a specified restriction as to the number of ads.
Thats true, there are user friendly (clean, easy to navigate) sites with 3 ads and there are sites with just one or two blind links that would trick the (especially newbie) surfers to visit sponsors.

Thats like selling anything else - there are customers that are willing to pay big cash to get their needs fullfiled but they sure wont spent a penny if they are forced to buy stuff they don't want.

Anyway.. I think 3ads / 12 pics is good ratio and we dont really need more. Definately we shouldnt give out more free content either but I think the content should be the highest quality possible - just the way its in the members area. Not sure how many LLs have this rule but it exists for sure (even if its unofficial one) - pics should be around 100kb. With the all broadband connections we've got today that's just insane - I'd be more than happy to serve 1024x768 or even bigger photos but due to 100kb rule I simply cant :(

Floyd

2008-03-30, 09:48 PM

SheepGuy

2008-03-30, 10:31 PM

I would

CrazySy

2008-03-30, 10:42 PM

Lemmy

2008-03-30, 11:58 PM

NY Jester

2008-03-31, 12:35 AM

I like the index to gallery page links...looks good Floyd.

Useless

2008-03-31, 12:36 AM

So as to not hijack CrazySy's thread I'm going to ask over here.. what does everyone think of THIS SITE (http://www.hardcoreassfucking.net/hardcoreasians/) I've taken some of the ideas brought up here and tried to keep it within the basic link list rules... would anyone list it?Without hesitation. |thumb
I am giving access to my galleries directly from my index page. I knew many people will look at it as a totally fucked up site, and I have no problem with that. I just need to try and see how that concept works, many will list that site and many won't, and I have no intention of changing it. I either submit it to whoever would list it, or keep it for my own useI can't remember who it was, but I used to have a submitter that built sites similar to Floyd's example there. I call them linear, where the index leads directly to the first gallery, the first gallery links to the second, and so on. The main page has always been nothing more than an FPA broken into 3 ad blocks anyway. If a submitter wants to experiment with form and drop that page, or offer navigation around it the way you have in your example, I don't see why any reviewer would care.
I would. But as far as it pertains to the concerns originally posted by Kit I don't see how it solves anything save possibly the need to make mirrors. So what we're left with is a looser definition of what a freesite should look like (or tighter if this end up being the ONLY allowed formad, by now my head is spinning).At this point, I'm on a campaign of free site reform, which includes a looser definition so that builders have some room to breathe and be creative, yet the content isn't hidden from the surfer. Though we have to credit kit with bringing this to the table, I'm fairly certain that we are now on a different track than what he had proposed. Perhaps the end result will meet both of our needs and kit will be willing to list a site like Floyd's beautiful example. Who knows?

JustRobert

2008-03-31, 03:18 AM

Floyd,
I would if my list was on there and most of the others I know would accept this. I really do not expect the bigger, trusted and succesful lists to do so, though I could be wrong like many other things.

Sergeyka

2008-03-31, 08:47 AM

Guys!
Please who agrees to accept free site version 1.5 (new format) spam your LLs here:

http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/showthread.php?p=395676#post395676

Sample

http://www.hornyfellow.com/free/hot-blonde-babe/

Thanks

ponygirl

2008-03-31, 10:52 AM

Guys!
Please who agrees to accept free site version 1.5 (new format) spam your LLs here:

http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/showthread.php?p=395676#post395676

well, it's a bit early for me to say I'd take any site with this new format, I think there's lots of things that have to be worked out first. I feel like we're still in the discussion stages of this, for me anyway...

Sample

http://www.hornyfellow.com/free/hot-blonde-babe/

Thanks
and this is why. No offence, it is a nice looking site, but we have talked about not wanting a list of blind spammy links down the side for the recip table, and I'm not sure anyone's agreed on a number or anything, or where the content links are etc. Those are the first things that come to mind.

I like the idea of making some changes, but I'm not going to just throw out all the old rules overnight. There's still lots of people who should have input into any changes that haven't posted their thoughts here.

my 2cents

Sergeyka

2008-03-31, 11:14 AM

Old format will work as before :)

Ok
Let's write new rules in a place?

KG Gary

2008-03-31, 11:36 AM

I like the idea of making some changes, but I'm not going to just throw out all the old rules overnight. There's still lots of people who should have input into any changes that haven't posted their thoughts here.

my 2cents
I totally agree.
:)

The reasons for this new design have already been slammed by many here, and all of the current rules are there for a reason.
From a regular freesite builder's perspective I'm excited about the possibility of more freedom, but I'm also very concerned.

My sales from the freesites I build are gradually increasing, slowly but surely. How will a new format affect those sales? Maybe freesites have evolved to a good level for creating sales already, and maybe any changes will see a serious sales drop.

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

Ok
Let's write new rules in a place?

Slow down a bit! What new rules?
Until the driving forces in link lists decide what's happening there aren't any new rules. Greenguy has already shot down just about everything that has been proposed, and without more input nothing will change.

Preacher

2008-03-31, 11:45 AM

stuveltje

2008-03-31, 11:52 AM

Greenguy

2008-03-31, 12:59 PM

I think you're all fucked in the head. We're ten hours from the fucking fun park and you want to bail out.

...You aren't going to wake up tomorrow and see that Such and Such Link List now only accepts free sites with 50 other recip links on them...I woke up to that :D
http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/showthread.php?t=46310

...LATE EDIT: Here's a basic mock-up of an index page. http://www.theactusreus.com/schlampe/test.html Assume that the rest of the free site would be business as usual. Who is harmed or hindered by that?I don't think I'd have had a problem with that one last week. Hell, you could move 1/2 those recips to the other side (sorry, 2 include files instead of 1) and probably make DDave happy :D And, if you made that into a table with 4 cells (which you can do with one simple include) and jammed in there under the warning, you'd have a page that I know I see & accept every time I review.

Am I missing something? Are there LL's out there that have a cap on the number of recips you can have on a warning page?

...Sample

http://www.hornyfellow.com/free/hot-blonde-babe/......All the babes are shotted with high-definition cameras...|thumb

Old format will work as before :)

Ok
Let's write new rules in a place?Only if the new rules include that you must use poor grammar :D

***

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

ArtWilliams

2008-03-31, 01:33 PM

2 Questions:

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

Inquiring minds want to know!

Free sites is a bad quality site in therms of Google because:
1) They never updates.
2) Text content duplicates many times and equal texts of hundreds other free sites.
3) They don't have new incoming links after initial listing in Link Sites.

Free site is a bad quality site in therms of Surfers because:
1) They have bad usability: surfer must click 3 times to see the gallery (warning page -> main page -> gallery).
2) They have small content amount (2-3 galleries)

Greenguy

2008-03-31, 01:41 PM

Last Activity: Today 12:34 PM
Viewing Thread New free site format (version 1.5) @ 12:34 PM Kit's here :D

stuveltje

2008-03-31, 02:16 PM

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

Mateusz

2008-03-31, 02:53 PM

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

I almost felt off the chair LOL

|haha

stuveltje

2008-03-31, 03:46 PM

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

Greenguy

2008-03-31, 04:00 PM

Last Activity: Today 02:41 PM
Replying to Thread New free site format (version 1.5) @ 02:41 PM 2 hours later, Kit hit the reply button & he's currently almost 20 minutes into his typing :D

Greenguy

2008-03-31, 04:31 PM

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

Greenguy

2008-03-31, 04:57 PM

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

swedguy

2008-03-31, 05:29 PM

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

DangerDave

2008-03-31, 06:18 PM

What I want to know now is...

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

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

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

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

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

As my mother would say.. "If Kit told you to jump of the Harbour Bridge (http://images.google.com.au/images?q=sydney+harbour+bridge&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi) would you do that too?"

DD

stuveltje

2008-03-31, 06:31 PM

As my mother would say.. "If Kit told you to jump of the Harbour Bridge (http://images.google.com.au/images?q=sydney+harbour+bridge&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi) would you do that too?"

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

Greenguy

2008-03-31, 07:25 PM

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

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

Thanks for nothing |thumb

murray

2008-03-31, 08:18 PM

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

Its another cold war

kit

2008-03-31, 09:32 PM

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

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

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

Soon :)

Kit? Comment?

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

kit

2008-03-31, 09:38 PM

It could look ok if you didn't have to link to category pages aswell.
Some examples: 1 (http://www.bigasspornsite.com/test/), 2 (http://www.bigasspornsite.com/test/index2.html), 3 (http://www.bigasspornsite.com/test/index3.html)
I like #2 and #3 templates much more than #1.
May be suggest a rule "one link to the one LL" on new sites format?

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

kit

2008-03-31, 09:40 PM

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

kit

2008-03-31, 09:46 PM

kit

2008-03-31, 09:53 PM

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

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

2008-03-31, 10:01 PM

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

thanks,
marc

kit

2008-03-31, 10:11 PM

2 Questions:

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

Inquiring minds want to know!

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

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

papagmp

2008-03-31, 10:56 PM

Ms Naughty

2008-04-01, 02:06 AM

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

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

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

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

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

balls_deep

2008-04-01, 02:40 AM

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

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

Maj. Stress

2008-04-01, 03:51 AM

Our current model works no matter how outdated it is;.
It's not really outdated, it has just been around for a long time. And it has endured because it still works. :)

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

The same principal could apply here.

tigermom

2008-04-01, 06:35 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Black Sluts (http://www.black-sluts.net/)

Hottie Wives (http://www.hottie-wives.com/)

Ms Naughty

2008-04-01, 07:51 AM

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

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

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

Sergeyka

2008-04-01, 08:03 AM

Slow down a bit! What new rules?
Until the driving forces in link lists decide what's happening there aren't any new rules. Greenguy has already shot down just about everything that has been proposed, and without more input nothing will change.

Greenguy - The God?

kit

2008-04-01, 09:34 AM

Our current model works no matter how outdated it is;.
Yes, somebody still use the horses. I do not adept of 1.5 FS format, but we try new formats to prevent link sites niche degradation.

Who think, we're not degradate, look into your traffic stats numbers for the last 5 years.

bluebrit

2008-04-01, 11:14 AM

This threads all well and good but so far i still haven't seen anything that's going to make a great deal of difference.

40 recips is great to stop mirrors but mirrors will still be built by people submitting to 80 LL so that achieves nothing but it does turn the warning page into a banner farm without images. More outbound links than inbound are a reason a lot of sites don't list high in google in the first place so forty static links would be like waving a red flag at them.

If i am right in my thinking, (and there are people on the board more qualified in seo than myself) search engines do not like listing fs because the fs model never updates.
On top of that the format is easy for se algorithms the likes of google's to spot so if it is listed, the listing is temporary at best unless it has something very unusual to offer.

Search engines, now more than ever, are where sales come from and they are looking for quality active sites that update regularly and offer the surfer something new.

That's something a fs will never do. fs are basically a static advert saying take a look and buy more porn. What good is that to google?

Assuming i am right. Changing the pages or the recips, is not going to make a fs anywhere near as interesting to se's as daily updated blogs or LL and that being the case, the changes mentioned may work short term but in the long run, they will make no difference at all.

Personally i am leaning towards the idea of a few different formats that stay within the standard rules but give more flexibility to the submitters so they can build using different formats.

That may mean more work short term for reviewers but 3 or 4 acceptable models will probably stand a better chance of good se listings than the single one we are all using now.

I would like to hear from someone with good seo knowledge, what they think of this problem. Any takers?

Useless

2008-04-01, 11:47 AM

I would like to hear from someone with good seo knowledge, what they think of this problem. Any takers?You already have. |banghead|

borgivan

2008-04-01, 12:08 PM

...what they think of this problem...
When Kit will present his view on dynamic FS, that he called FS 2.0 in another thread, your brain will be fucken cracked off :D But LL that will use this technic will raise up, I think...

KG Gary

2008-04-01, 01:49 PM

One thing worth noting I think:
I'm a freesite builder and my sales aren't declining, they're rising.
Maybe they could be rising faster, I don't know, but I'm really happy with the way freesites work at the moment. I'm doing pretty good right now, so from my perspective nothing needs to change. However, I'll happily accept any changes made and adapt accordingly.

Greenguy - The God?
:D
He's not a god, but he is one of the main driving forces in link list rules, along with many others. There's a huge difference between respect and kissing ass.

I'd love to hear more about kit's new "2.0" version of freesites - seems like diversity is going to be accepted at some places which is great.
Freesites are what I do 365 days per year - well, almost, so I'm bound to be concerned if changes are made.

jds

2008-04-01, 05:54 PM

Before we go any further, I think we need to hear from the French Link List & Free Site Coalition as well.

lol, Ok I'm giving my opinion then ;)

This thread is typically the thread you know nothing's gonna move with.
Freesite is designed to convert as is, loooking for ways to improve it is adminitting you don't know how to convert with it. Nothing more

|bullshit|

Greenguy

2008-04-01, 07:17 PM

Difficult and not clear access to the picture and video content - one of the reason, why bookmarkers drop our stone age LL and go to the TGP or Tubes.
Come one, let's try to make 10 pages between surfer and content. You think you will maximize your profit and traffic?...Do you remember back in 98 or 99 when a majority of Link List owners banned Full Page Ads between the warning & main pages? I remember this, because I was one of those Link Lists. Free Site builders bitched & complained that we were cutting down on their ad space. 9-10 years later, you're gonna tell me that I think there are too many pages on a Free Site!?!?!?!?!

...I suppose, better do not limit the recips number at all. Just don't mention it in the submit rules. BTW, I have no such limitations.Neither do I.

1) I hope, there is less FS mirrors will burn. There is no reason to link to 40 links sites and make at least less mirrors. 1.5 format is more classic 1.0 format than future 2.0 format, but I don't ready to discuss the 2.0 FS conception. GG will ban me. ;-)...Don't even joke about being banned. There's been one banning on this board based on the poster's opinion and that was because he was attacking a respected member of the board (as well as a personal friend) The fact is that your 1.5 does NOT cut down on mirrors. I don't mind 20, 30, 40 recips on a site, as long as they are laid out properly. I have no idea why people that are on your side keep assuming that there is an issue with the number of recips. If a Free Site builder is making 2 versions with 20 recips on each, that's their business.

...2. Very good question. In fact yes, longer session is cause of more sales. (we actually force surfer click to the couple links before content.) Another thing is a usability ballance. Today classic FS is abolutely worse for 99% surfers and they go to the TGP and than to the Tubes. 5 years ago, classic FS was like a small piece of gold, 10 years ago it was like a diamond. 15 years ago one porn page built in the totally dark garage (PK, LOR, etc.) made their owners rich.
Time changes and nowaday surfers drop us and go to the much more usable sites. Lets simplify FS and make it more usable for the surfers? Yes, the number of the possible sales contacts will decreased, but bookmarkers will stay on LL.Link Lists have ALWAYS been less attractive to surfers than TGP's. Hell, I used to tell my friends to go to Ampland because I liked his site better! But that doesn't mean that Link Lists don't have a good solid base of traffic. Regardless of SE, I know my site can send good quality targeted traffic to Free Site owners each & every day.

Penisbot was registered in June 2000, right? Don't talk to me about what happened 10 or 15 years ago. That'd be like me telling Richard or Persian Kitty how it was back in 95 or 96.

**

Kit - my main two questions are:

1 - Why do you want to eliminate the warning page or warning text?

2 - Why do all these examples of 1.5 Free Sites have the recips on the left hand side?

Let's go from there. I really want to discuss this with you.

swedguy

2008-04-01, 08:09 PM

The "v1.5" might actually be a good thing for free site submitters.

I have not tested and will never do, I'm only basing it on stats.

2+ years ago, the majority of the people entering a free site, clicked through to the main page.
Today, the majority is leaving when they hit the index page.

main -> gallery, the majority still click through there.

kit

2008-04-01, 08:12 PM

Link Lists have ALWAYS been less attractive to surfers than TGP's. Hell, I used to tell my friends to go to Ampland because I liked his site better! But that doesn't mean that Link Lists don't have a good solid base of traffic. Regardless of SE, I know my site can send good quality targeted traffic to Free Site owners each & every day.
Why do not use "the horse" if people used them before? The cars is more usefull, but that doesn't mean that "the horses" don't have a good audience. You're about it?

Penisbot was registered in June 2000, right? Don't talk to me about what happened 10 or 15 years ago. That'd be like me telling Richard or Persian Kitty how it was back in 95 or 96.
I've read abut good old times in their interviews.

**

Kit - my main two questions are:

1 - Why do you want to eliminate the warning page or warning text?
I don't eliminate the warning text, but warning page is a horrible thing. I can't find the entrance link on many FS (I'm experianced surfer). I guess the surfers do not stand long time with us and permanently migrate to the more usefull sites like TGP and Tubes.

2 - Why do all these examples of 1.5 Free Sites have the recips on the left hand side?
Because I'm lefthander! Right-handers can place recips on the right side. The people, who can play soccer, can place the at the top and the bottom.

The 1.5 FS format is just alternative to the classic FS and provide more flexability to the site builders. Somebody can post old good FS, somebody can try new format. Who accept blogs in their LL, can you find the warning page there? I don't. And I don't see why the FS must have warning page.

Useless

2008-04-01, 09:12 PM

This thread is typically the thread you know nothing's gonna move with.
Freesite is designed to convert as is, loooking for ways to improve it is adminitting you don't know how to convert with it. Nothing moreKnow-nothings?

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

How fucking dare anyone think outside of the box! How dare anyone suggest a slightly different method of doing things and HOW FUCKING DARE ANYONE ELSE WANT TO DISCUSS IT or pick it up and run with it. You know, just because you wander past a flock of sheep in a field, grazing and waiting to be raped by a farmhand, doesn't mean that you have to get on all fours and start ruminating and chewing straw.

I'm not some damned clueless newbie and I will NOT be addressed like one. And I am not FUCKED IN THE HEAD.

How many of you cocksuckers have even attempted to read the thread on Master X? I did. Google's translator sucks balls, but I tried to understand as much as I could. I wanted to know what other webmasters outside of this small cocooned community were discussing and what their arguments were, for and against, this change in template. I'd love to sit on high and summarily dismiss shit without a second thought. But I can't. If I can find a way to earn another dime in this rotten fucking business, by golly, I'm going to. Maybe you'd be surprised, but the webmasters at Massive X brought up the same pros and cons and they have the exact same doubts there too, SEO and otherwise.

What I don't understand is, what is so offensive about this idea, which amounts to nothing more than a voluntary template change? No one is saying that if some of us decide to build differently that GG and DD better accept out sites - or else we'll cry really, really loudly. GG says he has no cap on the amount of recips and doesn't care if we link to the galleries from the index - so what's the problem? If it's just the warning, why explode? Why not say, everything is fine, but you still need some sort of warning? If I was opposed to this template change, I hope my reaction would have been along the lines of, "I don't think this will help, but it doesn't hurt me, so I don't care what you do."

Warning page this, warning page that. Look at how many 'warning' pages have a a tiny chunk of warning text just above the enter link, after you've just scrolled past three banners displaying a 14 inch cock resting on a chick's face. Unless you have a hidden rule about no hardcore above the fold and the warning text has to be up there too, then you don't really care about the warning. I'm not sure what the warning page standard is, but I assume it's a lot like the standard that says the word Penisbot has to be kit's recips and Nee Dee has to be on R-occo's recips and Debauchery has to be on Spaceman's recips, but Link-o-Rama doesn't have to be on GG's recips.

Even though some us had already begun to discuss the issue calmly and intelligently, others felt the need to attack from the start, to be condescending and insulting. It's a shame, because it would have been nice to hear more opinions from free site submitters, instead being shut down by people who haven't submitted a free site in years, who don't care whether or not free site submitters might be able to work with some changes and might just think that they could make another buck.

Greenguy

2008-04-01, 09:38 PM

Why do not use "the horse" if people used them before? The cars is more usefull, but that doesn't mean that "the horses" don't have a good audience. You're about it?...Horse? Car? What are you talking about? Are horses supposed to be Link Lists & car are TGP's? If so, fine, there's still people that like horses & they still buy things.

...I've read abut good old times in their interviews...Good old times? This has nothing to do with good or bad times. This has to do with how things evolved & me having 1st hand experience because I was there. You read a book about a soccer game, while I was there playing it.

...I don't eliminate the warning text, but warning page is a horrible thing. I can't find the entrance link on many FS (I'm experianced surfer). I guess the surfers do not stand long time with us and permanently migrate to the more usefull sites like TGP and Tubes...Then why do any Link Lists have any traffic? Based on your theory, no surfers ever come back to a Link List because they are too stupid to find a big text link that says "ENTER" If your traffic can't find an enter link on a warning page, how are they going to find a join link on a paysite?

For fuck sakes! 10+ years of linking to warning pages & you're telling me that people can't find the enter link? You really are delusional.

...Because I'm lefthander! Right-handers can place recips on the right side. The people, who can play soccer, can place the at the top and the bottom...So Sergeyka is left handed too? Just admit that you pushed that format because the SE spiders will see those links 1st.

...The 1.5 FS format is just alternative to the classic FS and provide more flexability to the site builders...Your reasons make no sense. I have proved every reason you have posted as being wrong or not needed. You bring up the RTA label as a replacement for the warning page & I tell you that the RTA people ask us to put the label on our warning page. You say this will cut down on the number of mirror sites & I tell you that most Link Lists do not have a cap on the number of recips on the free site.

You are telling people to change for the sake of changing.

Greenguy

2008-04-01, 10:05 PM

Useless - what pisses me off personally is the way it was presented. Go re-read Kit's 1st post (which is what I am basing all of this post on)

"free sites layout is not so usable for surfers as tgp gallery" - this has been known to everyone since Day 1. Link Lists have less traffic than TGP's because of this. 2 more clicks before you see boobies.

"Text content duplicates many times" - this can apply to mirrors as well as crappy free site builders. 1.5 does not correct either. Educating/teaching people how to build better free sites might solve this, but in the end, what does the link list owner care if he's linking to mirror #7 of 23?

"They don't have new incoming links after initial listing in Link Sites" - neither do the TGP's or Blog posts that Kit is so fond of.

"Free site is a bad quality site in therms of Surfers because" - again,. TGP's are better & more popular. Yet Link Lists still seem to have decent traffic.

"We accept free sites without warning page if you will add ICRA or RTA meta tags to your site HTML code" - RTA asks us to put the code on our warning page, which is a "good faith effort" in the eyes of the US Gov't.

http://thepurelinks.com/tmp/f2.gif - Kit doesn't give us an example, he gives us a picture of a template? Come on!

"Benefits:
1) There is no reason to keep warning page" - why is that a benefit?

"Content can be accessed by two clicks instead 3 clicks before" - One less click? Yipee.

"Decrease free sites mirroring" - no it doesn't.

"PS. Read initial discussion on Master-X here (russian text)" - the PS pissed me off because if we decided to discuss this thread on say Medium Pimpin, the 1st thing you'd see in the thread would be a link to this one. The 2nd thing in that was the fact that the thread in question was already 200+ post into it - 30 or so less than this thread currently is. If you read it, good for you. But there's no way in hell that I'm going to translate 9 pages thru bablefish to find out what I already know - 1.5 is a dumb idea.

Now, that being said, I will agree with you that we do need to look at Free Sites & we do need to think outside the box. I think I need to dust off some old notes (yes, I have notes) I also think we need to revisit this thread:
http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/showthread.php?t=42250
(and, as you know, had my brain been working in the last year, I might have tried to do something about this already)

I'll also admit that part of my problem is ego driven - my mind keeps yelling to me "Who the fuck do they think they are changing how Link Lists & Free Sites work without consulting you?"

Love ya - Retard OUT!

Preacher

2008-04-01, 11:37 PM

...Debauchery has to be on Spaceman's recips...
I think you meant Capt Sparrow |couch|

Here's the thing, I actually don't agree with Useless on warning pages. I like having warning text on the index & believe or not, I don't use uncensored hardcore images on the warning page.

In fact, if you were to look at my first post, you'd see that I actually said,
Now notice I said getting rid of the main page, because there's no reason a small block of warning text couldn't fit into Kit's suggested page layout above.
So my opinion on this has been the same throughout the thread. And when I was discussing Kit's example, I did not think that the recips had to be on the left, or any other specifics, I just thought it was time to and Ok to discuss possible changes to the freesite model.

I am not FUCKED IN THE HEADI thought that the "I think you're all fucked in the head." came from our collective responses for a willingness to list Floyd's site. Other than the linear format index->gallery1->gallery2->gallery3 I didn't really notice all that much out of the ordinary. Was it the HPA at the top of the index? I mean it's got warning text and we've all seen recips listed on the side like that before from creative builders. On top of that, Floyd's one of the best submitters I have, he could probably float a turd without my recip on it and I'd still list because of his history of submitting to me.

I'm hoping I'm wrong and the "fucked in the head" comment wasn't directed at us, regular forum members and friends to the board for what we will choose to list on our sites.

I understand there's background here because of who put it out there and the manner in which they did and tempers are running high, but it still doesn't feel good when someone we look up to and respect may have insulted us just because of the type of site we'd list. :(

oldbrad

2008-04-02, 01:14 AM

"This thread is typically the thread you know nothing's gonna move with."

I took it as know nothing is, not know nothings. I don't think he was calling anyone a know nothing, just saying we know nothing will result from...

SheepGuy

2008-04-02, 01:40 AM

The problem with any type of written communications is that the reader will sometimes misinterpret the frame of mind or the intent of the writer.
There seems to be a fair bit of that going on here, or at least I hope that's the case.
I would have thought that there would be a lot less heat in a discussion of ideas as to how some people want to experiment with the freesite format, some don't, and some LL owners will list some of those experiments, and some won't.
If we were all talking about this at a barbecue, I'm sure it would all be worked out amicably.

oldbrad

2008-04-02, 02:33 AM

Using the link from the index to gallery 1, to gallery 2, etc. isn't anything new. It used to be used often by many people around 2001 or so. We used to use it to hopefully drive traffic to our link lists. I think JanTM used it with great results to build traffic to Booballistics by saying gallery 1 --> gallery 2 --- > more galleries.

This design works well for some, not as well for others. The truth is that it just comes down to how well you sell. Some people sell well from a completely scrambled or disorganized site. I don't, and have had my best sales (over 20 signups in 1 year) from a very clean site with minimal banners and regular traffic.

There is no reason to get rid of a warning page. Whether for piece of mind of the webmaster, a show of good faith to others, or simply more add room for free site builders. Those that want to should just remove the main page. It really does just come down to choice of how you want to make it.

If better se results are the overall goal, and not just the removal of warning pages, then indirect linking would probably be one of the most benefitial steps, aside from higher quality sites being made and submitted.

Most builders don't take advantage of the freedom they have right now in designing, quality or layout. Most follow the same pattern even though it isn't set in stone, but then complain for more freedom to change things up. I think it's less a result of things being too restrictive, and more a result of lack of imagination and willingness to switch things up.

Of course, many of those that are the exception to that are on this board. They bring great designs and original looks to their sites, which is a wonderful change of pace.

I would love to place recips on the main page, which should be a step in the right direction, as opposed to having on the index. This means possibly less pagerank to the link lists, but seems that it would more benefial in the long run even though it's just a small change.

I used to be able to do this as most dont require the index page recip, but i was hoping to find out if Kit would be willing to allow recips on the main page as opposed to the index only?

Brad

Greenguy

2008-04-02, 03:29 AM

I think you're all fucked in the head. We're ten hours from the fucking fun park and you want to bail out....Ummm....aaahhhhh....well, you see, I thought that everyone knew that line was said by Clark Griswod (played by Chevy Chase) near the end of the 1st Vacation movie. |pokefun||greenguy| My Bad :)

amadman

2008-04-02, 11:26 AM

I'll also admit that part of my problem is ego driven - my mind keeps yelling to me "Who the fuck do they think they are changing how Link Lists & Free Sites work without consulting you?"

It is cool that you realized this and acknowledged it.|thumb

I am sure most people realized that something was getting to you other than just the ideas themselves.

The mind is a crazy thing.|shocking|

amadman

2008-04-02, 11:53 AM

As for cap on recips.... There does have to be a line somewhere. But common sense should keep most people far from it.

I am sure many reviewers have seen the sites with the recips from every linklists on the net. Back when most people were using dialup these pages took many minutes to load. Not to mention looked like total crap.

Greenguy

2008-04-02, 12:07 PM

As for cap on recips.... There does have to be a line somewhere. But common sense should keep most people far from it...Even though Kit did a horrendous job explaining this in his 1st post (Sergeyka shined a light on it for us) one of the points of 1.5 seems to be a large number of recips, to the point where a rule would be in place as far as the lowest number of recips you were allowed to use. I do agree that a rule like that should be in place - and I do have a rule that the minimum number of recips is 6 - but I don't see a need to increase that.

amadman

2008-04-02, 12:28 PM

to the point where a rule would be in place as far as the lowest number of recips you were allowed to use.

Oh... I think I see now. Its not as much about submitters wanting to use more recips but more like LL requiring more recips to be used.

Greenguy

2008-04-02, 04:07 PM

Oh... I think I see now. Its not as much about submitters wanting to use more recips but more like LL requiring more recips to be used.I think that the 1.5 submitters want to use more recips (instead of making mirrors) & they think that Link List owners will decline them if there's more than 20? 25? 30?

I really don't know, seeing as Kit never explained it & all we have to go on is Sergeyka posting that the rule should be 40+ while we look at his example 1.5 site that has 37 recips on it. |huh

kit

2008-04-02, 08:58 PM

So Sergeyka is left handed too? Just admit that you pushed that format because the SE spiders will see those links 1st.
I don't push it, I offer it as another possible FS format.

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

I have proved every reason you have posted as being wrong or not needed. You bring up the RTA label as a replacement for the warning page & I tell you that the RTA people ask us to put the label on our warning page.
So, I think all of the following sites broke this rule.
http://www.link-o-rama.com/greenguy/blog_porn.htm
http://www.link-o-rama.com/galleries/

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

Who want to use FS with warning page - there is no problem.
Who want to use FS without warning page - there is no problem too.

This is what I think.

oldbrad

2008-04-02, 11:00 PM

Why must it be the warning page to go as opposed to the main page?

murray

2008-04-03, 02:28 AM

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

jds

2008-04-03, 05:51 AM

Know-nothings?

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

You misunderstood my words.

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

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

2008-04-03, 09:20 AM

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

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

Greenguy

2008-04-03, 09:38 AM

...And for sure I do not "push" left side recips template, just because it will spidered first. If you know DOM, bloсk position in the browser window and position in html code can be totally different...I don't know what DOM is, but I do know that 99.44% of people that create an html page like the gif example you posted would have whatever is in that left hand cell seen 1st by a spider.

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

So, why don't allow FS be more flexible in their format?...That's what you come back at me with after 5 days of debating? My blog category links to blog pages & my hosted gallery page (that's not open to submits) links to hosted galleries? You forgot all of those pesky surfer-annoying paysites that I have listed.

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

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

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

Sergeyka

2008-04-03, 10:10 AM

Greenguy

2008-04-03, 10:46 AM

Greenguy

2008-04-03, 10:49 AM

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

Sergeyka

2008-04-03, 11:38 AM

My bad English - your slow death
:)

Dear owners big thanks!

kit

2008-04-03, 03:37 PM

You know, I was thinking: if you're that concerned with getting the surfers to the content quicker, you could just link to the gallery pages.
I concerning about ballance betwwen FS usabilty and value.
Last 5 years this ballance decreased and became very small.

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

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

Greenguy

2008-04-03, 04:10 PM

...This is Tube conception. Yeach page IS content (streaming video).
http://www.youporn.com got 5 million uniques daily using it. Not bad.No - I'm talking about hotlinking or linking to directories of pics that have no index file or linking directly to pics/vids on sites that have no htaccess file in place.

Now THAT would make for a happy surfing experience.

Or why not just endorse good old Fusker? |thumb

kit

2008-04-03, 08:13 PM

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

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

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

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

Greenguy

2008-04-04, 11:44 AM

...Now when SE positions dropped, LL traffic will almost dry.So your site would die if Google dropped you to the point where you could not find your domain on the 1st few pages of results for ANY keyword(s)?

Greenguy

2008-04-04, 12:01 PM

For those of you that may have missed it, there's a tangent of this thread that has started up over in marc's thread - you can start to read it here:
http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/showthread.php?p=396191#post396191
But the long & short of it is very simple: Kit has invented the HUB :D

borgivan

2008-04-04, 05:57 PM

But the long & short of it is very simple: Kit has invented the HUB :D
I imagine you sitting in front of your screen and chuckling with a demonic laugh at your own CLEVEREST post, thinkin it will shoot Kits head off and kill all his ideas and plans. Holy shit! I'm laughing, too !:D|bananna|

DangerDave

2008-04-04, 06:32 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DD

stuveltje

2008-04-04, 06:44 PM

I imagine you sitting in front of your screen and chuckling with a demonic laugh at your own CLEVEREST post, thinkin it will shoot Kits head off and kill all his ideas and plans. Holy shit! I'm laughing, too !:D|bananna|
mmm i am thinking how to understand your post (and yep i am not english or usa either), or you are being sarcastic here and you are definitly not an english person or you are an usa person and i realy need to take english lessons again ( oke i didnt say the lessons i had before did their work:D)...help me out here...still i think its probrably the first thing

Linkster

2008-04-04, 08:51 PM

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

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

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

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

Useless

2008-04-04, 09:19 PM

There is no anti-Kit agenda.I'm calling bullshit. |bullshit|

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

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

Useless

2008-04-04, 09:21 PM

I don't think I deserved such disrespect at our first exchange !Neither did I, douche bag.

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

SheepGuy

2008-04-04, 11:13 PM

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

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

DangerDave

2008-04-04, 11:29 PM

I'm calling bullshit. |bullshit|

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

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

I call double-bullshit |bullshit| |bullshit|

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

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

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

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

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

The short answer is...

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

Great.. |bananna|

DD

LowryBigwood

2008-04-05, 01:05 AM

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

Does it? My results may vary...

LowryBigwood

2008-04-05, 01:12 AM

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

plateman

2008-04-05, 02:28 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Useless

2008-04-05, 02:33 AM

2. The 'idea' was proposed as a forgone conclusion... not as a proposal for discussion. That is real cart-before-the-horse stuff.. and not conducive to movement in a common direction..That's not true at all. Hell, Kit himself hadn't even decided if he was going to accept them until a couple of days later. He was looking for input, but was once again engaged in a hostile manner. The topic was brought here for input. I have no idea why anyone perceived it as anything other than that.
3. Change for changes sake is waste of time/moneyresources.. Whose money? Whose time? If you don't see a minor amount of flexibility in design as an issue, then why not allow for it? This is my biggest point of confusion. You and GG seem to argue against it while saying it's not any different than the current free site. Then you call it a change. I've never studied quantum physics, but I'm fairly certain you can't have change in a state unchangedness. (new word) So which is it, a change, or not a change - and what exactly are we arguing about? |huh
Useless you seem to want to tar "us" with a certain brush.. but do you say the same things about those that rush to defend Kits position so vehemently...I see Sergeyka and Borgivan reacting to GG's hostility. I'm not certain that they are necessarily defending Kit at much as poking at GG. I suppose I could defend him, but he's done nothing but piss me off in this thread. Also, I'm not entirely certain over what Kit's opinion is, other than link lists, and therefore submitters, are in trouble. I happen to agree with that. I don't have a huge arsenal of free sites out there, but I can't even tell you when the last time I saw a new sale came in from one of my old sites, and they used to make sales. One is better off being a gallery submitter today than a free site builder.
and it's only outcome is battle between 'the sides'... There was never any reason for this battle. Several of us small link list owners, who I had always assumed were respected here, were discussing the idea before GG's first post:
Kit - you are such a fucking moron that it baffles my mind how you got to where you are now (well, except that you copied an established format, but that's another story)...That's when it went right to shit.
Oh there was also this gem:
anyone that is moronic enough to re-invent the LinkList/FreeSite concept without discussing it on this board does not belong in the business.The entire purpose of this thread was to DISCUSS IT HERE.

And was this necessary? http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/showpost.php?p=396510&postcount=1
If the bashing is going to continue on OTB for yet another week, why would anyone bother listening? I have enough closed-mindedness in my life.

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

2008-04-05, 11:50 AM

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

Hasn't it always been? You don't see a lot of walk-in adult theaters anymore...at least not around here.

Google comes up a lot in these threads, and I suppose G is a huge consideration in this business. But if everything is tied to G, then doesn't that make it even more uncertain? Hell, we don't even know how G works, and they are subject to change tomorrow if they feel like it.

Has anyone branded a site in such a way that Google is secondary, and would do well regardless of Google? Is it possible for a linklist to do that? It just seems to me that 100 uniques a day from people who come to your site because they like it and want to buy something is much better than 10,000 uniques a day from people who type "free porn" into a search engine.

I'm a little new at this and my be in dreamland here, but are we really that Google dependant? That is what Kit seems to imply.

Greenguy

2008-04-05, 01:07 PM

...Again, the suggestions don't deviate very far from the standard free site, but a thread created to ask which lists would accept them was treated as spam and moved....The thread was moved because I believe that Link Lists & Free Sites, as defined by most members of this board, contain warning pages. Kit's v1.5 has ELIMINATED the warning page:
"There is no reason to keep warning page if you add special meta tags to HTML code"

I can honestly say that if ANYONE posted what Kit did - PK, Richard, DDave, Murray, Cleo, Raw Alex, Emerald, Linkster, mb, etc - ANYONE - I would have reacted in the same manner, because I am a huge supported of the warning page concept as far as Free Sites & Link Lists go.

You keep thinking this is an anti-Kit thing - and I have admitted that part of my 1st reply was ego driven. And we all know there is this "Greenguy hates Russians" mentality on Master-X. None of that applies to the core of my argument against this - I like warning pages.

...The free sites that I want to build in the immediate future won't have a main page. There will be an index with a warning, either a table or sidebar of recips, and 2-3 galleries, each linked-to from the index by a thumb and text link. But I assume that they won't be listed by many of the bigger link lists since they aren't a traditional free site. Of course, I can't ask who would be willing to accept them in this forum, because that's apparently somehow threatening to the traditionalists.I can see where you're coming from, but I do honestly think that if you had started that thread, I'd have left it here because it does have the warning page involved (and please feel free to start it if you wish)

Hell, Bill's been building sites like that for YEARS - they do have a main page, but the galleries are clearly linked right off the warning page.

(and yes, I typed all that up before I read the rest of the DDave & UW posts, which is why it looks kinda redundant)

Also, IMHO if you standardize sites in such a way that has been described, you may make them easy targets for the search engines. Why doesn't each LL decide what they want to list instead of everyone trying to conform to one set of rules? Back in the day, this may have worked out well...Because we're learned that when one asshole (me) changes his rules, people build sites to fit them. Example: I change to 12 pics/page & Cleo stays at 10. Preacher build a Free Site & wants to submit to both, so he puts 12 pics/page. Cleo's listings are changed by default. The real way to do it to make everything appear "different" is via design & coding.

Greenguy

2008-04-05, 01:24 PM

Let me sum all this up, because I think this is taking up way to much of everyone's time.

I did not read what Kit posted as something that was up for discussion. I read it that he & the people over at Master-X were going to change how Free Sites are laid out. The discussion about this had already taken place on the other board, as Kit posted a link to 200+ posts on the topic.

Yes, my ego tells me that anything to do with Link Lists & Free Sites should be discussed on this board & involve myself as well as many others. Call me what you want, but I think that 11+ years doing this & only knowing of about 5 other people doing what I do for longer (months longer than me, not years) entitles me to be involved in a discussion like this from the beginning & not 9 thread pages into it.

Based on those 2 things, hopefully people can see what I was so fucking angry. If not, then so be it - call me an asshole :)

The 2nd part of this is Kit's Free Site v2.0, which is basically this v1.5 with galleries added to it. This is a hub. It's a fake TGP. It's a list of your own galleries where you trade links with other people. This is not something new. This is an existing marketing method that this board, especially MrMaryLou & On The Bench, have preached for the last 5 years.

Now, had Kit come in here & stated that he wanted to list the hubs of webmasters that fit into a list of rules, no one would have complained a bit. In fact, people would have jumped for joy, because everyone building Free Sites probably has pages like v2.0 sitting on their servers.

***

Even though I think the presentation of v1.5 & v2.0 has sucked ass, I think everyone can admit that without it, this big open discussion would not have taken place (or at least pushed the discussion wide open)

I would ask that Useless get the ball rolling on Link Lists that will consider accepting Free Sites with a warning page that links to 2 or 3 gallery pages (no main page) Let's call them v1.75 Free Sites (or whatever the fuck you want to call them).

I'd also invite Kit to start a thread about trading links with hubs over in the Link & Traffic Trading forum.

|shake|

Useless

2008-04-05, 01:38 PM

Let's call them v1.75 Free Sites (or whatever the fuck you want to call them).I was thinking v1.69. It has a more sexy ring to it. ;)

Greenguy

2008-04-05, 01:40 PM

<angry and typing>STOP MAKING FUN OF KIT AND HIS FREE SITE CONCEPT</angry and typing>

dib dib

Cleo

2008-04-05, 01:50 PM

Bring back pic posts...

skopintsev

2008-04-15, 09:34 AM

Let's take into account also free site submitters. For example I had most of sales from non index pages. One of the biggest point of FS concept is surfer is thinking he's on paysite. New cooncept will make surfers more "automatized" => less sales. Of coruse, that it is good idea something to change on old concept. My idea is, let's keep old concept and prefer also these rules:

1) All sites in the same directory + just one subdir - for example http://www.abc.com/abc/index.htm ; http://www.abc.com/abc/main.htm etc.

2) No more that 50 free sites for one domain

3) Strictly no mirrors

CaptainJSparrow

2008-04-16, 01:49 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

Combining a warning page with a link straight to the galleries sounds fine to me as well. More links on the warning page are fine too.

I think that Tigermom summed it up quite well in the quote above.

I'd love to see submitters get more creative. It seems that most free site builders build the exact same type of sites because Link Lists have dictated exactly how to build those sites. The free site builders are scared to be creative for fear of all their work being for naught because they won't get listed.

As Link List owners I think that we should encourage creativity instead of stifling it. I like Tigermom's idea of a mix of pics, movies, and stories. More galleries and flexible reciprocal linking also sound like good ideas to me.

Not to change the focus of Kit's thread too much, but do any of you have positive, creative ideas that you'd care to share about how we can change things up a bit?

Greenguy

2008-04-21, 12:24 PM

Just a thought that ran thru my brain over the weekend:

Those of you that wish to try out 1.5 was well as regular free sites can do so by creating a standard free site PLUS a 1.5 entrance page.

This way, you can get traffic from everyone |shake|

Mr Spock

2008-04-22, 03:16 AM

2008-04-22, 11:50 AM

I wonder if you could submit the new version 1.5 AND the traditional version to the same list...hmmm

faxxaff

2008-04-22, 01:07 PM

I like the idea of v 1.75 as it keeps up the warning page and makes the visit an easier experience for the surfers. Additionally all content pages will be crawled and indexed by the SE bots as they usually don't dig any deeper than the second page. It should improve SE traffic a lot!

Greenguy

2008-04-22, 02:37 PM

stuveltje

2008-04-22, 02:42 PM

Back when a warning page was actually a warning page and not a FPA with 20 multi-colored recip tables & 2 small lines of warning text, the current Free Site structure made MUCH more sense.

Maybe we need to go back to that.....I vote for that one! For real i hate that things change.........and i wont get along with changes.....Stu<----and changing things wont work, specialy not with reviewing, i am old fashioned|boobies|
Btw alot who probably readed the thread from kit about the 1.5 didnt understand it either, i have seen some very strange free sites submitted at the linksites i review for, they probably had to be the new 1.5 sites, they where all an instand "REJECT".
I go for the old rules, so maxium of 16 linkbacks to other linksites, only
3 links to other stuff, yes i make exceptions, but thats only a small group, so yeah i have definitly problems with new conceptions, My bosses lett me deside.....i have great bosses:D
I cant see a benefit of 30 linkbacks to linksites, oke maybe for the linksites but not for the surfers, so it would be a an ses thing, but i like to relay on the surfers, keep them happy with easy sites, they will come back, we all know ses can fuck you every month, i say go for the surfers and not for the ses.
I probably say something wrong here in english but i know what i mean....we need the surfers to come back, so give them what they want, easy to navigate free sites, dont make them think what to click...to many choises are never good:D

Linkster

2008-04-22, 04:00 PM

Back when a warning page was actually a warning page and not a FPA with 20 multi-colored recip tables & 2 small lines of warning text, the current Free Site structure made MUCH more sense.

Maybe we need to go back to that.....

I would be very happy with that as that is exactly what the SE's are looking for when they bot you - these free sites with graphics and looking like a hosted tgp gallery template is a waste of the submitters time both from the SEO and the SALES standpoints - they just dont sell like a good old free site that uses a small amount of very targetted text and maybe one little banner - and the less recips the better

As far as the recips - I would propose two things:

1. First off the LLs have to figure out that the linking back to categories is probably at least 50% (if not more) of the problem you are having getting good listings in Google - over the last 1 1/2 years they have gotten very good at figuring out that those recips and the category linking are "schemes" to build popularity - and have added quite a bit to the algorithm to deal with them

2. No more than 8-10 good looking recips on a warning page - the mirror issue isnt really an issue when it comes to SE's for submitters - you will still get the best version listed and yes the other mirrors will be ignored - for LLs - it just means that whoever is on that mirror picked by Google or other SE gets the pass-through PR(if there ever is any given to the free site) - and the rest just get what the recips were originally intended for which is a click or two every week or so to the LL from a surfer.

This isnt rocket science - its "what is good for the surfer" and that means that it becomes "what is good for the LL" - and by default - what is good for the submitter in the long run
Too many people are over-analyzing free sites and over-reacting to what they think is the newest "trend/fad" - keep in the back of your mind that just because something works great for TGPs/MGPs doesnt neccesarily mean its going to be good for Free Sites

No wonder so many submitters are complaining about not being able to make sales on free sites - they are treating them like something that they see in the TGP world - its a completely different animal and the sooner a submitter learns that - the sooner they will start making some good money

added : from a LL owner point of view Id also be happier than pigshit if we could all gather together and decide to get rid of these frigging category trades or at least drop them down to no more than 8-10 max - yeah - there would be a few LLs that would be losing some PR (who cares) - but they arent getting much benefit now - if any - and it sure wouldnt affect their SE listings (since they dont have any)

Bill

2008-04-22, 04:49 PM

I'd be happy to experiment with more variation in designs, if I thought I wouldn't get hassled for it.

There was a time when linklists enforced standardization pretty agressively. That created a market situation where every freesite builder had to try to build the optimum site within fairly narrow parameters. That kind of market force rewards a standardized look and feel.

Then, all the linklists added 'free hosted sites', which used graphic elements and designs that forced a new, semi-covert standard on freesite design onto builders.

Not only were we competing with each other, we were competing with fancier graphic sites, without recips, whose sales we were losing.

I'd be happy to reduce the number of recips on a site - but, if I do so when others don't, they pick up the "long tail" of little linklist traffic - which means I'm cutting my own throat (since i don't build mirrors at all anymore).

Sven800

2008-04-22, 11:27 PM

I would be more than happy to get rid of all the category recips on Free Sites I submit. For one it would make things easier on me - No more figuring out if my gallery belongs in "Lesbian-Teen", "Teens w/ Toys", "Teen Softcore" or "Nude Teens".

SheepGuy

2008-04-22, 11:38 PM

Agree with most of your post, but I'm not crazy about

added : from a LL owner point of view Id also be happier than pigshit if we could all gather together and decide to get rid of these frigging category trades or at least drop them down to no more than 8-10 max - yeah - there would be a few LLs that would be losing some PR (who cares) - but they arent getting much benefit now - if any - and it sure wouldnt affect their SE listings (since they dont have any)

I'm not sure where my SE spots come from, but I have some good ones for cat pages and I wouldn't want to screw them up by taking down cat trades just in case they have something to do with it.
I don't ask for or even want category recips on submissions though.

Linkster

2008-04-23, 12:01 AM

Sven - you would still want to know what category to submit to - of course that would depend on whether you are really targetting a specific niche to try to get sales from those interested surfers - or just throwing a free site up to see if it gets any sales

Sheepguy - Id be willing to bet that the cat pages you are doing best with have a combo on them that has the least amount of cat trades (which is why I thought the option of leaving the worthwhile ones up was an option) and a good selection of targetted text on the other sites you have listed - if youre up for it I can show you privately what I mean (always free of course since Im totally against anyone charging for knowledge - especially for SEO) |thumb

Sven800

2008-04-23, 12:07 AM

Sven - you would still want to know what category to submit to - of course that would depend on whether you are really targetting a specific niche to try to get sales from those interested surfers - or just throwing a free site up to see if it gets any sales

True, but I could build a file with Teen recips, and use it for FS's promoting both hardcore, softcore & lesbian teens.

Basically I am lazy I hate it when i have to go hunting for the correct cat. link each time I change sponsors. :D

SheepGuy

2008-04-23, 02:34 AM

Sheepguy - Id be willing to bet that the cat pages you are doing best with have a combo on them that has the least amount of cat trades (which is why I thought the option of leaving the worthwhile ones up was an option) and a good selection of targetted text on the other sites you have listed - if youre up for it I can show you privately what I mean (always free of course since Im totally against anyone charging for knowledge - especially for SEO) |thumb

You're right and you'd win that bet |thumb
I am doing better keyword-wise with pages I have less trades on. Damn, never occurred to me that more trades were not necessarily a good thing.
I'm definitely up for it and I'll drop you a PM tomorrow. SEO is not something I've worked on, just been lucky with for the most part, and it's very kind of you to offer advice.
Thanks!

alvarez

2008-04-28, 09:41 AM

I have few top positions on Google ( about 10k from Google on my site )
All what you need is:

1 links to your site from free sites
2. daily update on your site

that's it :)

Buncha

2008-05-13, 08:23 AM

I don't run a LL, so this is probably a stupid idea. But here goes:

What if the recips were moved from the index page to the galleries. Each gallery could have 8-12 recips. So if you wanted to submit to 36 LL, your FS would have 3 galleries with 12 recips on each. There would be no need to build multiple FS, and your index page wouldn't look like a linkfarm.

I can understand LL owners would want an index link because that page has the most surfers. But if the traffic from all 36 LL was directed at one FS (instead of multiple FS), there would be more surfers altogether on that site. And I think that once the surfers have seen the galleries, most of them are ready to visit other free porn sites.

I'm sure there are numerous reason why this wouldn't work. But I just thought I'd throw it out there.