Well, This Is Depressing (aka Google Analytics for SE Traffic to LOR) [Archive]

Greenguy

2015-03-22, 06:21 PM

I think they might have at last realised that LOR is a link list (they do not like link lists - you are the competition).

They realized that in August of 2007. Up until then, I was getting 10's of 1,000's of hits a day from them, if not more! I wonder if I had Analytics on LOR back then? I'll have to look...

Or it could possibly be that they see the links you post in the "What Are You Working On" thread as "using the boards to spam links" and have penalised you for this.

So you think it took them 48 hours from the time of this post on March 5th to basically wipe me out of their results?

I keep thinking that I really have nothing to post in these thread because I'm mostly just updating & tinkering...then I remembered that I could let the world know each time a category gets a Gutting Of LOR makeover!

So yesterday, I converted the following category pages to the new snazzy look:
Links to Anime Porn by Greenguy (http://www.link-o-rama.com/greenguy/anime.htm)
Links to Black BBWs by Greenguy (http://www.link-o-rama.com/greenguy/black_bbw.htm)

...actually, I think I did those Tuesday, but it's not like it really matters. I mean, this thread has always been about legal |spam|ing |couch|

Maybe it was my "legal |spam|ing" comment?

Greenguy

2015-03-22, 06:28 PM

I just searched "greenguy" in google & stopped after not seeing my site in the 1st 20 pages. I honestly can not remember not being #1 |cry|

Greenguy

2015-03-22, 06:49 PM

FUCK! |angry| I don't think "greenguy" is a "dirty" word in Google's eyes anymore. The suggestions in the dropdown used to always stop once you hit the 2nd "g" but now, it's giving suggestions, even with a space & certain letters after it:
"greenguy r" gives you some
"greenguy l" gives you nothing (because of Greenguy Links I assume)

This hurts. 3-4 months of work on the site trying to get "back in the game" and I get fucking slapped with this?!

Just fuck me.

ecchi

2015-03-22, 06:57 PM

So you think it took them 48 hours from the time of this post on March 5th to basically wipe me out of their results?

Maybe it was my "legal |spam|ing" comment?

I doubt if it was any comment. If it was your links posted on the board that got you shit canned (big "if", I'm not saying it is, I'm saying it is a possibility) it would be a numbers thing. Their ranking software will assume that a small number of links from boards, blogs, etc. may be genuine recommendations, so ++ your ranking. A larger number get ignored as probable spam or friends trying to help out. But go over a certain number of links on the boards/blogs/etc. and the software decides you are a black hat link spammer and hammers your rating right down. Does not have to be links posted on those days, the links may have been up a while, but their spider hit this board over those two days, counted the links it found, and that may have put you over the limit.

If your stats program for this board identifies Googlebot hits (by IP) then look see if it was sniffing around the board just before LOR got demoted.

ecchi

2015-03-22, 07:05 PM

FUCK! |angry|.......Just fuck me.

Just try to remember that Google ain't the only game in town. Getting shit canned by them hurts, but it ain't personal, and it ain't the end of the world. Back when I only had one main adult site I got totally dropped from Google for nearly a year - it hurt a bit financially, but not as bad as you would have thought. I'm still here, I'm still in the game.

All you can do is try to win via Google, if you can't then remember traffic comes from other sources too.

Just remember one of my favourite movie quotes, from one of my favourite movies (Broken Arrow) and apply it to Google:

Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.

ArtWilliams

2015-03-23, 09:22 AM

...and before anyone asks, no, I have no idea what I did or didn't do on March 7th to cause this :(

Hell, I thought, if anything, I was making my site more SE friendly, as well as more user friendly |banghead|

That's sucks. Google, disappoints me more each day.

I find with now Google, you pretty much have to put "porn" or "xxx" with a search to get smut. They do know what a "bukkake gangbang" is though. No additional words needed for that one.

Greenguy

2015-03-23, 09:36 AM

FUCK! |angry| I don't think "greenguy" is a "dirty" word in Google's eyes anymore...

I'm convinced this is what happened. Every other letter after "greenguy " gives you mainstream suggestions (with my best guess as to what other word causes the adult results):
greenguy a - adult
greenguy j - jenkins
greenguy l - links
greenguy m - marketing
greenguy o - o rama
greenguy p - porn
greenguy s - sex
greenguy x - xxx

It just sucks because I didn't do anything to deserve this. It's like being given a gift that you didn't ask for, but you love dearly & are very thankful for receiving, only to have it taken away for no real reason.

I don't want to come off as arrogant, but I truly believe I am the reason the word/nickname Greenguy is a "thing" (for lack of a better word) When I started in 1996, it was just the name of a public domain image on a free host that I liked & decided to use. Google is the one that decided it was a "dirty word" based on, I assume, my site being titled "Greenguy Link O'Rama". It wasn't until recently (last few years) that anything other than porn came up when you searched it. Now, there's recycling companies, games, whatever. It's like you decided to name your company Persian Kitty's Carpet Warehouse. I get fucked after 18+ years because mainstream companies decided to use the name I made popular???

And yes, I have kicked myself in the ass for years for registering link-o-rama.com instead of greenguy.com - it hurts even more so now because this might not be happening if I registered it (there's a story/reason why I bought LOR if anyone really wants to hear it). I almost had greenguy.com in the early 2000's for $10k & all my ARS Reward points from there on out, but the guy backed out of the deal.

It feels like I've been robbed on my online identity & believe me when I say, the feeling is fucking horrendous.

Toby

2015-03-23, 09:59 AM

OK, just a thought... Could this simply be a tracking issue? Could you have inadvertently changed something within the analytics code that broke it?

Cleo

2015-03-23, 10:04 AM

I applied to work as a Google Link Evaluator. Didn't get the job, but did learn a lot.

I was surprised that Google put a lot of weight on your 404 page.

This page sums up what Google is looking for these days.
Can You Optimize for Google’s Search Quality Raters? (http://searchenginewatch.com/sew/news/2127033/optimize-google-s-search-quality-raters#)

Greenguy

2015-03-23, 10:06 AM

OK, just a thought... Could this simply be a tracking issue? Could you have inadvertently changed something within the analytics code that broke it?

Looks like someone noticed I've been bragging about sitewide Search & Replaces that didn't break anything |lol|

I doubt it, but I will check the code I'm using against what's in Analytics after I post.

Greenguy

2015-03-23, 10:12 AM

On the bright side |lol| searching "greenguy links" still give me the extra links (I forget what they're called...sitelinks?)
http://greenguysboard.com/greenguy/google-lor02.png

So my site is still "important" |lol| just not my name.

Greenguy

2015-03-23, 10:31 AM

OK, just a thought... Could this simply be a tracking issue? Could you have inadvertently changed something within the analytics code that broke it?
I doubt it, but I will check the code I'm using against what's in Analytics after I post.

It doesn't look like there's anything fucked up about the code I'm using...
<script type="text/javascript">
var _gaq = _gaq || [];
_gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-6031233-1']);
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
(function() {
var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
})();
</script>

...except that it's old, because the code they have in there looks like this:
<script>
(function(i,s,o,g,r,a,m){i['GoogleAnalyticsObject']=r;i[r]=i[r]||function(){
(i[r].q=i[r].q||[]).push(arguments)},i[r].l=1*new Date();a=s.createElement(o),
m=s.getElementsByTagName(o)[0];a.async=1;a.src=g;m.parentNode.insertBefore(a,m)
})(window,document,'script','//www.google-analytics.com/analytics.js','ga');

ga('create', 'UA-6031233-1', 'auto');
ga('send', 'pageview');

</script>

And, it looks like you can now put it in the <body> via a php include, so I'm off to do more (hopefully successful) Search & Replace's |thumb

Greenguy

2015-03-23, 10:34 AM

Oops! Almost missed this...

I was surprised that Google put a lot of weight on your 404 page.
Huh? |huh

This page sums up what Google is looking for these days.
Can You Optimize for Google’s Search Quality Raters? (http://searchenginewatch.com/sew/news/2127033/optimize-google-s-search-quality-raters#)
Thanks for the link (I really mean it) but that page was written 3-1/2 years ago. Confident that it still holds true?

Cleo

2015-03-23, 10:45 AM

Oops! Almost missed this...

Huh? |huh

Thanks for the link (I really mean it) but that page was written 3-1/2 years ago. Confident that it still holds true?
Check your email for 150 pages of hell.

HowlingWulf

2015-03-23, 10:53 AM

Well I've been getting a lot of Google messages recently in Webmaster Tools about my sites not being mobile friendly and dropped from mobile search results. Seems new.

Fix mobile usability issues found on http://www.site.com/

Greenguy

2015-03-23, 10:59 AM

Check your email for 150 pages of hell.
Again...huh? |huh I've got nothing interesting in my email :(

Well I've been getting a lot of Google messages recently in Webmaster Tools about my sites not being mobile friendly and dropped from mobile search results. Seems new.

Fix mobile usability issues found on http://www.site.com/

I've been getting a lot of those for all my domains. Don't they know I'm just getting back into all this & working on LOR 1st?! :D

Cleo

2015-03-23, 11:01 AM

Greenie, check your LoR email again. It's a huge PDF

Greenguy

2015-03-23, 11:26 AM

Greenie, check your LoR email again. It's a huge PDF

That get's automatically redirected to the concentric addy, so one of them is not liking you :( Try the jenks89@gmail.com addy please |smooch|

Cleo

2015-03-23, 12:14 PM

Sent again to jenks89@gmail.com

Are you not getting email sent to greenguy@link-o-rama.com?

Greenguy

2015-03-23, 01:33 PM

Sent again to jenks89@gmail.com

Are you not getting email sent to greenguy@link-o-rama.com?

1 - Got it |thumb

2 - Yes, but I think concentric has some strange filters.

Ramster

2015-03-23, 03:01 PM

"Greenguy" only search is giving my #1 for you so that's good.

Greenguy

2015-03-23, 03:20 PM

"Greenguy" only search is giving my #1 for you so that's good.

HOLY SHIT I'M BACK!!!! My Twitter is even back & that was gone yesterday, too!

http://greenguysboard.com/greenguy/google-lor03.png

Off to look at some live stats.....

Greenguy

2015-03-23, 03:22 PM

...and there's an increase in Google hits so far today |thumb

Toby

2015-03-23, 06:31 PM

|bananna||banana|

2015-03-23, 08:26 PM

I'm waiting anxiously for any explanation of what the fuck has happend. Congratz on regaining the light spot but to be honest this , your site example just shows how heavily dependant we are on Google.

jollyhumper

2015-03-24, 04:37 AM

Greenguy

2015-03-24, 07:31 AM

And yes, I have kicked myself in the ass for years for registering link-o-rama.com instead of greenguy.com - it hurts even more so now because this might not be happening if I registered it (there's a story/reason why I bought LOR if anyone really wants to hear it).

I would like to hear it.

When I was starting out & on a free host (angelfire) I kept getting shut down because I was a porn site. I had been talking with a guy in Wisconsin named Joe (RIP) that had his own domains & pay sites (amateurs, pissing, and unmentionable lol) as well as a hub site at noodtech.com. I asked him if I could move my free hosted site to his domain & handle all his link trades, to which he agreed. So I was up & running on noodtech.com/greenguy/

My site/page was still called Greenguy Link O'Rama & while I was out surfing & trading links, we got a trade request from a site called Kara's Link O'Rama. We emailed them, asked them to change the name, got into a HUGE fight with them & Joe's solution was to register link-o-rama.com in my name (he even made up a company name to make it look more legit: Greenguy Marketing) Thus, my 1st domain became link-o-rama.com

BTW: The Kara that was running the other site was the same person that was working with RB & Max Cash & owned/ran their flagship paysite Kara's Adult Playground. Needless to say, RB & I had a very rocky relationship, even though I promoted Max Cash & got to become very good friends with the staff over there, especially Alyssa.

PS - Domains were not cheap back then. Network Solutions charged $100/year to register one (although, you didn't have to pay right away - you had a couple weeks to try out the domain before you bought it, which made it really easy to buy a domain name that you thought might get type in traffic & give it a spin lol) Anyway, I had already become good friends with Al4a & Ampland, who had also recently been kicked off their free host (concentric.net oddly enough) & bought their 1st domains. A couple years later, Amp told me that they were on the phone talking about me buying link-o-rama.com & joked that they should by greenguy.com & then sell it to me for $102 - and WOW do I wish they had done that!

I've got a Greenguy Trademark story, too, if anyone wants to hear that :)

Ramster

2015-03-24, 08:18 AM

That was interesting, love hearing those early days stories and how people started out. :)

jollyhumper

2015-03-24, 08:19 AM

PS - Domains were not cheap back then. Network Solutions charged $100/year to register one (although, you didn't have to pay right away

That was going to be my next question! |bow|

I've got a Greenguy Trademark story, too, if anyone wants to hear that :)

I am, since I wasn't a part of this back in the wild 90's, I love to hear stories about it.

(Well I was for a brief time, but being shut down by freehosts for no reasons, discovering people fucked you over / did not really own what they claimed to own, resulting in angry emails, I chose to go for a bachelor in Multimedia instead.
I picked up this shit in 2011 needing to do something in my then new health-situation.

What's the moral of this short story? I DO remember Greenguy from back then :) So it's a strong brand.)

J:)lly

Greenguy

2015-03-24, 08:45 AM

The Greenguy Trademark Story

I think it was 1998 when I got a lawyer (good friend that I grew up with) and decided to trademark the word Greenguy. So he started doing some research & found out that the guy the owned greenguy.com had applied for the trademark the week before, and for the same thing I was going for (electronic magazine or something like that) However, it was not yet his & was in a status where if anyone wanted to object, they had 30 or 45 days or something to submit paperwork as to why they objected. I knew a lot of people in the biz by then, so my lawyer drafted up a blank affidavit (or something) that I had about 30 people that knew me as Greenguy sign & notarize. The trademark office had to have it in their hands by a Friday & I gave everything to my lawyer on Wednesday & he was going to send it in with some legal objection paperwork. But, instead of sending it overnight via UPS or Fed Ex, this fucking dummy sent it on Thursday via standard US Mail. About 2 weeks later, I recv'd a letter stating that my objection had not been recv'd before the deadline, and the trademark went thru |banghead|

Needless to say, I never used him as my lawyer again & barely speak to him to this day.

OH! I also dropped $2k to WIPO trying to get linkorama.com which was also an adult links list that was almost EXACTLY like my site, but I got fucked on that, too:
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2001/d2001-1106.html

geirlur

2015-03-24, 05:47 PM

I'm waiting anxiously for any explanation of what the fuck has happend.

Just the old google dance :)

Greenguy

2015-03-25, 08:01 AM

Just the old google dance :)

What did cross my mind yesterday was when Google puts in an update, then pulls it because of some issue, puts the old data back in, then corrects the new update & puts that back online.

Does that still happen?

Greenguy

2015-04-20, 02:43 PM

What did cross my mind yesterday was when Google puts in an update, then pulls it because of some issue, puts the old data back in, then corrects the new update & puts that back online.

Does that still happen?

Apparently, it does :(

Once again, I can't find my site in Google searching for "greenguy"

What's worse is that this is the top 10 when you search for "greenguy links" |banghead|
http://greenguysboard.com/greenguy/google-lor04.png

And I was having a kinda good day....

LeRoy

2015-04-20, 03:05 PM

That sucks hard!! Webmasters tools should tell you why you're getting de-listed.

HowlingWulf

2015-04-20, 04:56 PM

At least you're still #1 in Bing!

Greenguy

2015-04-21, 09:25 AM

A thought did cross my mind about this - and I REALLY hope & pray that this guess is correct. Google Mobilegeddon is today, where they are "...implementing another major overhaul of its mobile-search algorithm. (http://www.economist.com/news/business-and-finance/21648947-worlds-biggest-search-engine-shakes-up-its-algorithms-mobilegeddon)"

Now, I know my site is not mobile ready & I don't really care. I'm currently redirecting everything to my AEBN theater. So it makes sense that I would not be found in Google if you searched for me on a smart phone.

So my hope is that what we're seeing on PC's at Google is the Mobilegeddon search results, and in a couple days, it'll be back to "normal".

|pray|

*Note: None of this - my redirecting or Google Mobilegeddon - effects tablets, where my site looks fine if you turn your 768x1024 screen sideways :)

HowlingWulf

2015-04-21, 10:55 AM

Hmm I've been making all my sites responsive lately as mobile searches are quite a lot of traffic. If you need help let us know. It's not too bad.

BNS

2015-04-27, 11:54 AM

there are plenty of bootstrap+responsive templates which you can easily adjust to suit your needs.

ditch the tables from html layout, it's 2015, not 1995 :)

Greenguy

2015-04-27, 12:17 PM

ditch the tables from html layout, it's 2015, not 1995 :)

But I'm SOOOOOO good at making them! |pokefun||greenguy|

ecchi

2015-04-27, 05:49 PM

Tables can be responsive, I use this all the time:
<TABLE WIDTH = "100%">
Or whatever width I want.

BNS

2015-04-28, 05:56 AM

then be sure to add a bunch of <font> tags too, they're awesome for seo :)

Ramster

2015-04-28, 08:48 AM

Tables can be responsive, I use this all the time:
<TABLE WIDTH = "100%">
Or whatever width I want.

LOL, dude that is a great idea, really

Greenguy

2015-04-28, 09:03 AM

With the exception of my main page (because I just redesigned it & still need to figure out the layout for 100%) my entire site is set to %'s for the tables/cells - I'm no ding-a-ling!

BNS

2015-04-28, 09:57 AM

redoing a single page won't do much for the site.

just using % instead of px doesn't make a site instantly responsive.

what you need in the first place is a better site consistency, both visually and data-wise.

learn to develop with current html/css standards using frameworks and stay on top of things rather than waste time with pre-historic table layouts.

ecchi

2015-04-28, 04:06 PM

just using % instead of px doesn't make a site instantly responsive.
No, but it is as start, a good start. And using % for absolutely everything (not just tables) WILL make it responsive, provided you know what you are doing (but it is easy to fuck up if you don't). Using CSS is one way but (news flash) it ain't the best. CSS is not consistent across all browsers, CSS does not work on all 'phones and tablets, and CSS is large and bloated, doubles the page size and makes "on the fly" changes difficult. In short CSS is the first resort of the lazy. Nothing wrong with that - I am proudly lazy. But if you are going to use CSS you have to be aware of it's limitations. Believing it to be a superior "use it always" solution is the first stage getting shit Google ranking because their spiders see your site as "non-compatible".

And while I'm being opinionated and pissing everyone off:
I'm no ding-a-ling!
Hmm.... I'd say refusing to allow for XP IE8 surfers makes you a ding-a-ling! :)
|couch|

Greenguy

2015-04-28, 04:06 PM

I didn't redesign my main page because of this lol - I just got sick of it :)

And yes, I know my html coding skills are D+ at best, I just really don't care. I gave up on mobile (non-tablet) traffic a long time ago. My site is for people with devices that can view a site at 1024 wide.

Greenguy

2015-04-28, 05:00 PM

Just an FYI: It's now 100% :)
http://www.link-o-rama.com/greenguy/mlinks.htm

BNS

2015-04-28, 07:12 PM

No, but it is as start, a good start. And using % for absolutely everything (not just tables) WILL make it responsive, provided you know what you are doing (but it is easy to fuck up if you don't). Using CSS is one way but (news flash) it ain't the best. CSS is not consistent across all browsers, CSS does not work on all 'phones and tablets, and CSS is large and bloated, doubles the page size and makes "on the fly" changes difficult. In short CSS is the first resort of the lazy. Nothing wrong with that - I am proudly lazy. But if you are going to use CSS you have to be aware of it's limitations. Believing it to be a superior "use it always" solution is the first stage getting shit Google ranking because their spiders see your site as "non-compatible".

using css was invented to solve all those problems - mainly separating layout of webpage from content, nothing to do with being lazy or not, you obviously got it the other way around.

as well as you obviously have no idea what makes a page responsive.

links which will make it more clear:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascading_Style_Sheets
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsive_web_design

Toby

2015-04-28, 11:18 PM

All this responsive design stuff has it's place, but the first question that must be answered before undertaking the rather substantial task of redesigning a very well established site is whether or not those visiting the site via devices with small screens actually purchase the product.

I've been asking that question for a number of years, and those that would have those numbers don't appear willing to share them. Namely, do surfers actually buy porn site memberships via their cell phones?

ecchi

2015-04-29, 04:00 AM

using css was invented to solve all those problems
If that were the case (its not, but if it were) then CSS failed miserably. In fact it would be an epic fail of historic proportions.

mainly separating layout of webpage from content, nothing to do with being lazy or not
Yes this is why CSS was invented, to separate layout from webpage, simply that - not to solve the problems of compatibility or responsiveness. In other words, to make things easier for "lazy" webmasters.

you obviously have no idea what makes a page responsive
Childish insults tend to loose arguments, not win them.

If you want links, here are a few on CSS compatibility:

Browser Compatibility (http://blog.deepbluesky.com/blog/-/browser-support-for-css3-and-html5_72/)

Tablet Compatibility (http://www.webbrowsercompatibility.com/css-properties/tablet-phone/)

'Phone Compatibility (http://www.quirksmode.org/m/css.html)

ecchi

2015-04-29, 04:25 AM

All the first question that must be answered before undertaking the rather substantial task of redesigning a very well established site is whether or not those visiting the site via devices with small screens actually purchase the product.

A good and valid question. There is no point in spending time designing websites that simply don't sell.

However as tablet and 'phone use increases, and PC and laptop use decreases, we will find it is impossible to get enough surfers to those machines to make any money. Already tablet/'phone usage looks like the main way the main buying demographic (18 to 30 year olds with money) surf. Soon, making pages only usable on PC/laptop will be like designing sites only viewable on W98/IE6.

So the important question is not "Do surfers buy porn on their 'phones/tablets?" But "What can we sell on our porn sites that they will buy?" For well over a year I have found that "non porn" sells better than porn, even on my porn sites. And my best sellers on my adult sites are spell books. Spell books can be read on tablet/'phones - in fact many people use tablets as eReaders, and use them for most of their reading. My best selling porn line is not websites, but porn eBooks, again ideal tablet/'phone material.

I would like to be able to say that I did this deliberately to cash in on future developments, but the truth is - I did it because porn sales were in decline, and I wanted to make more money from PC/laptop sales. I was not clever enough to look towards future technology, I was just lucky. However I am currently reviewing my "responsive" policy (the fact that many of my sites are responsive is due to me allowing for older PC browsers with low width limits, not because I allowed for 'phones/tablets, and so do not look good, and some even don't "work" on the smaller tablet or 'phone screens). Having read your post I'll be throwing in "consider what shit will sell on tablets/'phones" as another main concern about "device compatibility".

HowlingWulf

2015-04-29, 08:36 AM

I've been asking that question for a number of years, and those that would have those numbers don't appear willing to share them. Namely, do surfers actually buy porn site memberships via their cell phones?

Just checked my Nasty Dollars (http://www.nastydollars.com/?wm_refer=Howling) stats and my mobile sales almost equal 'regular' sales.

Toby

2015-04-29, 10:58 AM

Just checked my Nasty Dollars (http://www.nastydollars.com/?wm_refer=Howling) stats and my mobile sales almost equal 'regular' sales.

Yes, but can you tell if that is tablet or phones? Tablet users should still be able to see old school table layouts just fine, so you'd not be missing them either way. It's the phone users that I want to know about. What percentage of joins are from surfers using their smart phone?

Toby

2015-04-29, 11:11 AM

So the important question is not "Do surfers buy porn on their 'phones/tablets?" But "What can we sell on our porn sites that they will buy?"
Au contraire mon ami.

If you are going to sell something else entirely, you build a site specifically to promote that new product rather than convert a old well established site like LOR. Or more specifically, build a new network of sites to promote that new product.

One more thing to add, purely my own opinion, but if your business plan is highly dependent on search engine traffic for success then rethink your business plan unless you can generate the income to have full time seo specialists working on keeping up with it all. A one man shop ends up chasing his tail.

JustRobert

2015-04-29, 11:55 AM

Just checked my Nasty Dollars (http://www.nastydollars.com/?wm_refer=Howling) stats and my mobile sales almost equal 'regular' sales.

Well mine are exactly the same...0 |lol|

My design skills are more like Greenie's as I have not kept up with all the new stuff. |pokefun|JR

With that being said when everyone was talking years ago about getting rid of tables and were changing all their sites mine were on page one with tables and stayed there while most of those people chasing their tails bottomed out and left. Since then I have lost nearly all that but that was because of other updates by G a few years back. I just checked and the sites that are still on page 1 are there whether I search the terms on pc or mobile and they are still fixed size table built. So I'm not even sure I need to worry about responsive stuff right now or wait it out until I absolutely have to and then there will be something new again to worry about |crazy|

With all this being said, android and apple devices resize tables even if they are fixed in size including images. If you build it right the site looks exactly the same on pc and mobile just one being smaller in size, naturally, and I personally like that. I hate when you view something on a tablet/phone and instead of seeing 15 thumbs in the screen you now only get 1 or 2 thumbs because of responsive design. That is like building a site for pc with thumbs that are 750x1000 making the surfer consistently scroll down to see more. To me this is extremely annoying and quite ugly.

Now if you have a 1000 pixel table with 15 60x90 thumbs in a row that shit will be tiny and barely clickable when viewed on mobile. But if you swap it out to 5 or 6 150x200 or larger thumbs then even on small phones it is easily viewable and clickable. Plus, to me, it is far better looking so I have to assume it is better looking to others as well.

Then again, I am old so get off my lawn you young non buying whipper snappers :)

ecchi

2015-04-29, 05:01 PM

If you are going to sell something else entirely, you build a site specifically to promote that new product.........Or more specifically, build a new network of sites to promote that new product.

Ever watch TV? Did you notice how, during the Superbowl you only ever see adds for football products? How during the cop shows they only sell detective novels and toy police uniforms? And how during the sci-fi shows they only ever show ads for trips on Virgin Galactic, and Star Wars toys?

No?

That is because no successful business outside of Internet porn works on the model you suggest. Everyone else sells "other stuff", not "more of the same stuff that they give away free to attract customers".

Now, have you noticed how, in Internet porn (where we give away free porn and expect people to be so grateful that they buy porn for money rather than continue to surf for more free porn), there are less and less people running adult sites? And despite the drop in competition, most people still in business are complaining that they don't make as much as they used to?

That is because most people are still using the same model that you suggest (give free porn, then hope people decide to pay for it rather than continue to watch the free stuff).

IMHO only selling porn on porn sites is so "last century" and makes about as much sense as designing sites that can only be viewed on Windows98/IE6.

One more thing to add, purely my own opinion, but if your business plan is highly dependent on search engine traffic for success.........
I don't think any of us are doing that, are we? I don't even think it is possible (unless you own the search engine and adjust the results to put your sites at the top).

Toby

2015-04-29, 05:39 PM

IMHO only selling porn on porn sites is so "last century" and makes about as much sense as designing sites that can only be viewed on Windows98/IE6.
You must be living on a different planet. There are VERY few non-adult products that will allow you to promote them on adult web sites.

I do promote some things other than membership sites, but they're not a significant percentage of my income. I've tried quite a few things that were flat out busts. Adult toys, lingerie and fetish wear. Live cam sites and dating sites, multiple times. Just to name a few.

My site links are in my sig. I'd love to hear of some non membership program that's going to make me hundreds of dollars a month.

Useless

2015-04-29, 08:40 PM

You must be living on a different planet.
Not even a nearby planet.

ecchi

2015-04-30, 05:41 AM

I have often come across people who are horrified that I sell pornography on websites. This is the first time I have come across people who are horrified at me selling non-porn!

I hope you two are "creationists" rather than "evolutionists". Because the rules of evolution hold for businesses as well as life. And the principle rule that the nice Mr Darwin taught us was:

"Evolve or die."

You may be doing OK now, but if you continue to run your businesses like it is still the twentieth century, then prepare for extinction.

Toby

2015-04-30, 09:22 AM

ecchi

2015-04-30, 04:04 PM

You keep missing the point. What I'm saying is that if you're going to make a different product the primary focus then you build a new site/network for that. You don't abruptly change an existing site/network.
I'm not saying change the site/network, I'm just saying ad some extra ads for non-porn stuff.

(Oww fuck, I'm eating a take away while typing and I just ate the hottest onion bhaji on the planet - feels like I just filled my mouth with the strongest chillies available. Help, I need alcohol.)

OK, beer in hand, back to the point (but my mouth still hurts).

Back in the 1990's bandwidth was expensive, So free sites did not give much away, and rarely videos. As bandwidth got less expensive, we started giving more and more away. Today you can get a month's unlimited bandwidth from a host advertising itself for tube sites, for less than I used to pay for 1G. As well as the tubes, there are loads of message boards giving away free downloads of entire site rips (seriously, if you want to do a review of a sponsor's site and they won't give you free access - just do a Google search, you will find someone ready to give away a recent-ish download of their entire content).

Today, only a moron would pay for porn - there is more than he/she could use in several lifetimes, all available for free.

Fortunately for us, there are still a few morons about.

Unfortunately for us - they are getting smarter, every week there appear to be less morons and more tech savvy people out there.

Soon there will not be enough morons to pay your hosting costs. By then you need to be using your porn site to attract people, then flogging them other shit that they cannot get for free.

As a friend of mine (who became a self made millionaire in his twenties and is now a multi millionaire) loves to quote: "The first rule of business is innovate or die. If you are doing the same thing tomorrow as you were doing yesterday, then next Tuesday you start your 'going out of business' sale."

(My mouth still hurts a bit.)

Greenguy

2015-04-30, 04:30 PM

No to interrupt this ongoing back-and-forth, but my #1 listing for "greenguy" came back :)

Toby

2015-04-30, 04:45 PM

No to interrupt this ongoing back-and-forth, but my #1 listing for "greenguy" came back :)|bananna| |banana| |bananna| |banana|

I'm just saying ad some extra ads for non-porn stuff.Please post some examples of "non-porn stuff" that will allow promotion on adult sites. As I stated before, they are few and far between.

Useless

2015-04-30, 10:23 PM

Please post some examples of "non-porn stuff" that will allow promotion on adult sites. As I stated before, they are few and far between.Why isn't there a "why bother wasting your time interacting with ecchi" emoticon?

ecchi

2015-05-01, 03:48 AM

Please post some examples of "non-porn stuff" that will allow promotion on adult sites. As I stated before, they are few and far between.
Hmmm...... Some of us should pay more attention, because before the change to Juicy Ads, one such sponsor used to advertise on this board.

Also for a while my sig went to one such sponsor.

And one of the distributors of my book (if you follow my current sig) is mostly a non-adult book publisher who allows ads on adult sites.

Yes, they are hard to find. But making money is hard. If you want a way to make loads of money without actually working hard then you are making a mistake living in the real world!

Why isn't there a "why bother wasting your time interacting with ecchi" emoticon?
Because ecchi is a genius and everything he says is always correct - always! :)

Seriously though, it is because: If you don't want to interact with me then just don't interact with me. No one is forcing you to do so, last time I looked there was no board rule forcing members to interact with me. If you don't like what I say, and don't want to argue your point, just ignore me. You will notice that only you and Toby are arguing this point, no one else is. I choose to believe this is because everyone else agrees with me, but it is possible (some may say probable) that there are people out there who disagree with me but are thinking "There is no point in interacting with this asshole, so I won't bother."

Greenguy

2015-05-01, 08:14 AM

Why isn't there a "why bother wasting your time interacting with ecchi" emoticon?

Everybody brings something to the table |shake|

...except ~~username~~ - as helpful as a rubber crutch |couch|

MeatPounder

2015-05-01, 09:35 AM

...except MeatPounder - as helpful as a rubber crutch |couch|
|lol|
http://payload70.cargocollective.com/1/5/174738/3705748/crutch_860_860.jpg

Cleo

2015-05-01, 10:30 AM

I like cookies and ice cream.

BNS

2015-05-02, 03:54 PM

well this thread really digressed...

however, my clear cut opinion:

it's 2015 and you have to stay on top of things with current web standards, just because shitty looking site made you money in 90s, it doesn't mean it will do again, since in the 90s there was no competition like today from big blog or tgp networks to monster tubes with free full length videos.

you have to ask yourself would a surfer rather visit and stay on eye catching tube site with full length videos and watch them within a single click or go to obsolete link list where you have enter page, tons of category pages which lead to small 2 page sites with warning page and 2 poor galleries and banners?

btw, freeones is excellent example how an old site kept up with the times.

Greenguy

2015-05-03, 08:50 AM

you have to ask yourself would a surfer rather visit and stay on eye catching tube site with full length videos and watch them within a single click or go to obsolete link list where you have enter page, tons of category pages which lead to small 2 page sites with warning page and 2 poor galleries and banners?

I have no desire to run a tube site. I know the pros & cons of keeping my site the way it is & I fully accept that, even if it took me 8 years to realize it :)

However, if it was 2007 & I had to do it all over again, it'd be Tube O'Rama :D

ecchi

2015-05-03, 10:11 AM

just because shitty looking site made you money in 90s, it doesn't mean it will do again.....

That is my point about CSS. There is such browser and device incompatibility that it is practically impossible to make a site that is not "shitty looking" on some machines if you use CSS. Take LOR for example. Despite G's modesty it is a good looking site. However if you look at the thread where he talks about adding a slide in menu to the site, you will see it now only looks good on some devices and some operating systems. On others (eg XP/IE8) it is (sorry G) a "shitty looking site".

On XP/IE8 you get confronted by three non working buttons and an ugly menu dump. Worse, because the menu dump is the same on all pages, if you click a link "above the fold" the page appears not to change (it does change, but you have to scroll several screens worth down to see the change, most people won't realise this and will assume the page is fucked).

This means G is loosing, by his figures, $1 out of every $40 he could be making (Google disagree, their figures put it at about 20%, which is $8 out of every $40).

Worse, people will be talking about it. One XP user tweeting "Don't bother with LOR - it no longer works" will stop dozens of their followers even trying to visit the site, loosing him surfers who could ironically see the site perfectly on their Windows 8 machines, but who now don't bother because their XP using friend told them the site was as good as dead. Add on to that a few good re-tweets by people with plenty of followers, and G could be loosing thousands, possibly tens of thousands of surfers.

On top of that, I have been told (although PC says this is "old news") that Google lower the ranking of sites that are not IE8 compatible. Which, from this thread alone, you can tell will not make G a happy boy.

All this hassle because G used CSS instead of pure HTML. Is it worth it?

BNS

2015-05-09, 05:29 PM

Greenguy, what I meant was that you have tubes as a competition and you have to make your site more appealing, attractive and usable to the end user (used to the contemporary standards) who will stay on it and spend money on sites referred by you (not converting LOR > tube).

ecchi, you have to use CSS properly integrated into the site with everything else within a framework to benefit from usage, it won't do good otherwise, it's like trying to put a 2015 engine into a 1995 car.

Greenguy

2015-05-09, 05:40 PM

Greenguy, what I meant was that you have tubes as a competition and you have to make your site more appealing, attractive and usable to the end user (used to the contemporary standards) who will stay on it and spend money on sites referred by you (not converting LOR > tube)...

Ahhh...ok. I do get what you're saying now, and I am trying to come up with ways to keep people happy & coming back for more. BUT...I still think I'm better off throwing my mobile (non-tablet) traffic someplace else where I'll have a chance of making some $$$ as opposed to making my site look good for them :)

MadCat

2015-05-11, 03:09 AM

Ahhh...ok. I do get what you're saying now, and I am trying to come up with ways to keep people happy & coming back for more. BUT...I still think I'm better off throwing my mobile (non-tablet) traffic someplace else where I'll have a chance of making some $$$ as opposed to making my site look good for them :)

I disagree, you're probably better off getting your site to look good on mobile - at least on the larger devices. To make that easier, you're probably looking at doing things up from scratch, and use a CSS framework like Bootstrap which already has a lot of built-in handy bits for dealing with building a site that works on desktop and mobile.

Personally if I went through the trouble (well...) of opening your site on a tablet, I want to browse your site, not be sent somewhere else - and you have just as much chance of converting someone that's browsing your site as you do throwing them elsewhere, especially if you also tailor your ad delivery to perfer mobile-friendly things if someone's browsing on mobile.