Back in Porn after 6 years, things have changed!
 

After leaving doing free sites about 6 years ago, I'm back doing them again now I'm back at University and need some cash! Good to see some people I used to link with still around and doing well, like Greenie, Richards Realm and Tommys Bookmarks. However, Tommy's like many places now seems to be a closed shop or you have to pay to list (how to free site makers make any money?!?).

Anyway enough of my waffle, check out my first effort for 6 years and tell me what you think. Also let me know If I've missed out any good places to link with. More importantly, tell me if I'm doing anything wrong!

http://www.freepornfilth.com/pornsta...ung/index.html

That design is so 6 years ago! |couch|

Welcome back :)

Site looks good, that video player ad on the main page of your site could be considered a blind link these days.

Other than that I see no reason why it shouldn't get listed at smilingpussylinks.com (which is the biggest LL around these days) |couch| #2

Heh i know, I'm working on some new templates today. As for that video player ad, it's not a link to a sponsor, but real content. I'll have to make that more clear.

I'll add a recip for smilingpussylinks.com and see if they'll take me on.

Thank for looking!

The banner on the index page says Enter Here. There should only be one link that reads Enter Here on the index page.

Other then that the site looks nice.

Welcome back to porn. Tommys LL is worth the cost of the submitter pass, his site has lots of traffic. It does not take that many sales to recover the cost.

Your site looks pretty good to me, but there are a few links that are borderline blind IMO. I'd list it on my sites though, looking good. See sig for places to submit your sites. |thumb

Sorted. Thanks for that.

I'll consider paying to get listed at Tommys if I start to climb up the greasy slope a little!

Which links do you consider to be blinds, the Join ones on the gallery pages?

Thanks for you comments!

Well.. We had another discussion going on with blind links over the last few days and it seems there is quite a difference in what others consider a blind link. I said in the previous reply that you had a few links which were borderline blind. After looking again, I would say that some might consider the join links on the gallery pages borderline blind, some won't.

The link under the movie content on main page that reads "Download the FULL MOVIE and loads more for just $2.95!" could also fall into the same category for the same reason.

Before the other discussion on this topic, I would of called the links blind for the fact that they don't tell the surfer where they are going if they click. Having the price in there tells them they are going to pay, and probably makes it less blind in that scenario.

Again, apparently most won't consider those blind links so you should be good to go. .02

Thanks for your help. I'll be re-jigging my templates to make sure I don't have any borderline blinds.

Back in the day a blind was a link saying 'gallery3' or whatever, that used javascript to hide the link URL in the browser that went to a escape proof consoled up sponsors page. Funny enough the worst offenders for this used to be some TGP owners! e.g. 1 in 5 links being a concealed blind link!

No you don't, I took a quick look at it and figured it was a link to a sponsor, if it's real content all is good, my mistake :)

Nobody will consider that link as anything blind for the exact reasons you have mentioned. According to me it is nowhere near a blind link. It clearly says the surfer is going to a paysite.

Just to add, I think some LL's frown on a mix of video and images for content. I know the video isn't on the galleries, but just thought I'd mention the issue.

Welcome back and best of luck!

I may be totally off base with this comment, but one of the significant changes that's taken place in this business while you were gone is all that encompasses the 2257 issue. Because of this, it seems most diligent web builders are placing any and all explicit content after their warning page... this includes ads. You've got a fairly explicit graphic on your "warning" page that a surfer actually encounters before they see your "adult content disclaimer". Seems to me this appears as an "after the fact" thing that suggests an air of irresponsibility. I'm not saying it could or would be the source of a problem. But, from a "professional" standpoint, it just might look better to keep the explicit stuff either below or inside the warning page.

True, but as the entry page to this site is not in the root directory of the domain and will not be linked from the root directory of the domain without explicit warnings, the surfer will have washed up from an adult link list and will be fully aware of what they are going to get IMHO. It's really unlikely that the warning page for this free site will get linked by a search engine, but I maybe wrong.

BTW, how does 2257 stand when my server and myself are located in the UK?

I'm no expert on 2257, but as a UK resident I don't think our FBI could do much about you... and that obviously makes for a less restrictive approach to what you do. So, my previous comment is a moot point. BTW, Welcome back!

... unless you travel to or through the U.S.A.

What are they going to do then? The whole 2257 is about coming over to inspect your offices. Say you travel through the US, how can they prove that you don't keep 2257 records? Also, how can they even arrest you for, or hold you for questioning over a law that's applicable to the US territory only where the act was performed in another country? Have you ever heard of any visiting webmaster who has been questioned or investigated over this while visiting?

I can see how they may arrest foreigners over real suspicions of involvement in production/trafficking in CP, not over something of such an administrative nature as 2257.

I'm not a lawyer of course, I could be wrong. Just wondering if anyone has heard of anything like that in regards to visiting webmasters?

Also, to the original OP- the hardcore/explicit banners on the warning page isn't a moot point. Nothing to do with protecting your surfers, as much as some LL's possibly rejecting your FS for that.

True, they can't visit your place to inspect records if you live in a foreign country. My point is, I am just saying that many webmasters believe that they are exempt from American law. That's not true if you visit the states. It true about obscenity or any other American law.

Well... due to being convicted under the UK's Computer Misuse Act for computer hacking back in '98, I can't travel to the U.S.A. without a full interview and assessment by the US Embassy in London. I wanted to go to a bash in Vegas organised by C.A.O cigars a few years ago and was told by my lawyer that I could try to get through the interview but considering what I was convicted for and the Bush administrations view on this crime I would be, to paraphrase him 'pissing into the wind!' lol

Hey Orpheus, I'm in the same boat ;)
Not hacking for me, but a late night phone call to a Mr Reagan when I was young drunk and foolish ;) Persona non grata in the USA. I could likely fight it, but why bother |banghead|

You managed to call the US president??? Oh wait, you didn't mention if he actually was the one to take the call lol I wonder what you told him to make you a persona non grata?