Mr. Blue, very good answer :)

But linklist poster don't know which host is not banned because LL owners hide this list.

You can understand why they hide the list? The LL owner isn't the bad guy in this situation, it's the cheaters who are abusing the system. To prevent cheaters, you take steps, you have to keep some of these steps hidden. It's like installing a safe and then giving out the combination...no one would do that :)

Just post a question on this board, "Can anyone recommend a hosting company"...people will gladly give you a list of companies, all reputable, and you can start from there :D

If you believe everything that Alexa tells you, or some other "measurement" site tools, you (and others reading this thread) might be tempted to believe that. But the truth is so far removed from what those public stats show that those in the know will be laughing long and hard at this comparison. ;)

Simon, Alexa will not show mw if you send lots of CJ or other traffic like this to your domain. But I can compare Google PageRank and Google Backward Links - I think it's enaugh to compare site for SE traffic.

I know that's what many here think, no matter how many times others post about ignoring PageRank and how Google's backlinks don't tell you the real story. So I'm just mentioning again that to get the real story sometimes requires going way beyond those "tools"... and often means you also need to know all of the domains involved (and the people who own them).

Also, since very few outside the tech world install the Alexa toolbar, quoting their stats for the adult market is almost always pretty far off the mark.

But use whatever is comfortable for you. Personally I base my decisions on other data.

Simon, I know how to check site for SE, there are lots of other ways instead of PageRank and Link Popularity. For example there is penalty for you in Yahoo:

http://siteexplorer.search.yahoo.com...m&bwm=p&bwms=p

P.S. Sorry that I'm talking about your domain, but you decided to continue it.

I don't want to say your linklist is bad, but your linklist is not good yet to get lots of SE traffic. And any backward link will help, even from "banned" hosting company and you will get lots of them with your policy, because you hide real rules. I just wanted to say from the first my post in this thread that this is not honest. But sure I'm not a god to ooint out how to do your business.

yahook - first off - thats not his domain :) Second - google has some real nice tools if you really want to see backlinks - besides the link: command which is purposely limited by Google - however if you change out the : for a | then you will see what Google really has for a site.

As far as hosts and banning - I think that most people around here know which hosts they are - and there are loads of threads where even the owners of the hosts have come in and talked about it - so a real quick search here would give you a pretty good list
As far as recips and whether a host is banned - I (and Im sure you do as well at hqpornlinks) get a huge amount of submissions every day - and a good percentage of them are non-partner or crappy sites or known cheaters

heck youve even got a list of them over on your board - and Im sure youre not sitting there worrying about those poor cheaters that you decline and their recips :)

So what you want is that everybody should have their WHOLE (email, IP's, domain, ...) blacklist fully public?

Linkster the query "domain.com" will show you all backward links...

No, I'm talking only for ban of hosting company.

Since you think it's unfair to people that use a specific hosting company that they don't know they are banned.
Isn't it unfair that people who has a banned email, domain, IP or something else that they don't know about it?

If you ban email, domain - you ban concrate cheater. But if you ban hosting company - you ban all webmasters from this host. Do you see the difference? ;)

Hi Yahook... yes, as Alex pointed out, that's not my domain. :)
I just happen to know some of the link list owners here, and am lucky enough to have access to traffic numbers that aren't as easy to find.

Now... again not just addressing this to Yahook... the real point, to me anyway, is that we seem to be discussing changing something that is in place to protect many of the most reputable link list owners. Those arguing for changes are certainly outing themselves in ways that will not help their future ability to trade 'valuable' links and grow their businesses.

This thread should have turned into a "which hosting companies can I use with all confidence?" discussion, but instead it's become a "this isn't fair" (and to whom) discussion. It's been said more than once in this thread that it's not about fair, it's about playing by the rules or not playing with the guys (and girls) who make the rules.

Interesting to me that some people don't seem to get that.

Simon

Not necessarily.
If an IP is banned, someone else might use it too.

That's not really fair to the other people who use the same IP?

Big linklist owners can close their submit pages and open an partner account system. They will protect their pages from cheaters and everything will be honest. And hosting companies will not be bannes. That's my point of view.

Sure, that's why I don't ban IP's. But there are other way to protect you from that cheaters.

Indeed! Honest hard working webmasters that want to make the most money they can and do follow the rules. |shake|

There is more profitable for webmasters to use some of "banned" hosting companies, there are lots of reasons:

1) Possibility to pay from Fethard, CG Pay, Web Money and so on.
2) 24h ICQ support - how many hosting companies have it?
3) Good price policy
4) Reliability - they know this hosting companies for a long time and they work well.

Now you posted your POV. Why don't you run your LL that way and let other people run their LL the way they want it?

Time to move on.

Because I don't ban hosting companies...

Ok. Good for you |thumb

are you a poster? I guess you're not :)
most link list owners do not have such kind of a rule. I mean most link lists accept freesites from banned hosts. if it were a common rule there wouldn't be such kind of discussion.
the part I fully agree with you is that continuing this thread further won't take us anywhere.

now I understand your point of view much better. I have some reasons to think that your information is a bit incorrect in this part though. but it's up to you, and, once again, I understand your concerns although I believe these concerns do not have valid grounds :)
thanks for this explanation. and, btw, in my opinion all our posts are not adderessed to you or Surfn or Natalie. actually, as it was already said by Yahhok our main or even only concern is shared black list. as far as you do not use it, I do not have any questions to you.

Sundiver, about a year ago, a discussion here lead to the revealing of a single host name that was banned. Within hours, certain webmaster chat boards were filled with ways to get around the ban, how to set up other name servers, the host tried to contract out boxes on another host to move people, etc. It wasn't to stop the reasons that they would have been banned for, but instead to help the exact set of cheaters that were banned to work their way around the blocks. They were not going to make their sites better, remove the toolbar downloaders, the geo redirections, or re-install the images that 404ed to console hell, but they were sure going to try to trick us into listing their shit sites again.

I don't think very many link sites used a shared host ban list. I think pretty much each link site owner arrives at the same place by themselves. When we see cheaters, we attempt to find out who they are and what relationship they may have with past cheaters. We INDIVIDUALLY look for the best ways to protect out sites against people wasting out time, resources, and fucking surfers over. In the end, that many link sites have come to the pretty much the same set of conclusions should tell you something.

There is a shared blacklist (that I don't use) for individual emails or domains. It isn't any different from the posts in the "possible cheater" section on this board, except that the effects are a little more regular. Only a very few sites at the top of the chain can actually add bans that affect all sites. Everyone else maintains their own list plus the main list - but they cannot add to that main list. THere is no chance that a link site with 50 hits a day total traffic can randomly ban you and stop you from getting listed at Richard's, Link-o-rama, or other sites using that particular blacklist.

Link lists are not bound to list you. Satisfaction is not suggested, implied, or offered. How they choose to not list you is up to them.

Alex