A Discussion On Blind Links

[MadMax]

I'd like to get a discussion going with the other LL owners here on blind links. This is partially out of my own curiosity regarding the policies of others, and partially to give all the submitters who post here an idea of what will and won't fly at various LLs since most submitters try to build sites that are good with just about everyone. I'd like to invite all the LL owners to be longwinded on this one if you're willing to take the time.

By the same token, my experience on my own sites and hubs is that blind link traffic is damn near worthless when it comes to conversions.

Everyone's got a somewhat different definition of what is and isn't blind, and it seems I'm more strict than many on blind links.

So, the question is...what exact types of links do you consider blind? There are some that are kinda "no brainers" like thumbs linked to the sponsor. With text links and graphic text links, where do you draw the line?

I look at every link individually, and try to put my head into "surfer mode" when reviewing. The essence of everybody's rules on blind links boils down to whether or not the surfer is being deceived into clicking a link. IMO a surfer should always know when a link will take them to another site and basically what to expect there.

Often it has to do with how closely a given text link is positioned to a banner ad, since they're often and very effectively mixed. Any text link that's in the same link tag as a banner that's clearly advertising passes the test, since it changes on mouseover when the cursor's over the banner. I consider text links that are immediately adjacent to a banner (top, bottom, side) and in the same link tag to be an extension of the banner.

With "stand alone" text links, my rule is that it has to be clear to "Joe Surfer" that they're going to another site and basically what to expect there. Any text link that includes phrases like "take the tour", "instant access", "at sponsorsite.com", "free previews", "visit whatever.com", "free samples", "join free", "join now" or any of dozens of other variations on the same idea works fine with me.

I've been seeing more and more of these 3 and 4 line text links that make no mention of a pay site and they're starting to wear on me. You can't possibly tell me you don't have room for a mention of the paysite or membership or something like what's listed above when you're using multiple lines of text.

By the same token, adding phrases like this but changing the text color to something that really blends into the background I consider an obvious attempt at deception.

Text links that only have "click here" linked but are surrounded or preceded by text talking about the paysite are cool with me as well. A big stand alone "click here" is an exception with me and I don't mind them as long as they don't go to exploits...if a surfer has strayed so far from the pack that they'll knowingly click a link without having any idea where it goes then I'm too busy to worry about them



I'd consider the following examples (taken from today's reviews) to be blind links if they go to a sponsor:

"Take a look at the photos of these two beauties kissing,
and see all the lust, all the passion, all the innocence unfolding.
Their wet tongues gently lick each other, and the sparks fly.
CLICK HERE to find out what they are up to."

"Watch our hotgirls fuck and lick
each other for their
FIRST TIME."

"Every girl is a lesbian inside.It's just a matter of time until she let's it all go,and we are there when she does.
See her very first time with another girl.
It's a beautiful thing, and you can see it all NOW!"

" Unlimited quantities of adult movies, streaming and downloadale -
... - the largest Online Movie Collection !!!
Download Full Length Studio Porn Movies !!!"




These are similar text links from today's reviews that I don't consider to be blind, and they're still damned good advertising IMO:

"Where the the ladies of sophistication and experience love to play ....
With cocks!
X-Rated Mature Porn.com"


"Come along to
We Live Together...
See what happens when hot girls like us get
REALLY turned on!!"

"THE MOST EROTIC FOOT SEX YOU'LL CUM ACROSS
... Foot Kink.com features hot foot worship, explosive foot jobs, sexy toe sucking and so much more!"




So, what does everyone else think?

[Lemmy]

Basically I agree with everything you said. If there's not a clear, unambiguous reference to the paysite included in the a tag, or in the the unlinked text immediately preceding it, I would consider it blind. However, I don't enforce it quite as strictly at we-r-sex...yet (beggars can't be choosers).

If I feel that any link is a conscious attempt at deceiving the surfer, I decline. If I myself am confused, I also decline.

I accept "More free porn here" type of links if they go to a clean hub with no funny stuff on the same domain.

Another thing that annoys me is large blocks of text where everything is linked, especially if there is no mouseover effect on parts of the text. I've been guilty of doing this myself in the past, but you learn as you go along.

When making freesites myself I follow my own advice. Any standalone text links always include a clear reference to paysite.com, either in the a tag itself, or in the text immediately preceeding it, and my ctr is consistently in the 12-13% range.

[ponygirl]

I think you have it all...the thing that annoys me most is "click here for more free (whatever)" and goes to the paysite. Even if the paysite tour has free samples, I feel that this is deceiving to the surfer.

I don't mind the banners that look like thumbs, as long as there is linked text with it or on the banner- seems like a lot of sponsors have them & I see them used a lot.

I don't think that most surfers are stupid, especially after surfing around a while I think it's a no-brainer that you're going to a paysite most of the time when you click a link in a freesite

Basically, like MadMax said I try to be a surfer & if I click on something and don't go where I expected to then it fails. Personally, I usually use the paysite name, but leave the .com off - "all this and more at PaySite" kind of thing.

I think it's good to raise the discussion, though, because I notice that some subs coming through are walking a fine line. It's kinda time to stop & draw some lines before it gets worse - not meaning anyone in particular, just a general thing

well that's my thoughts on the subject lol

Ponygirl

[msanchez]

Yeah In a text link I think you really need to put the paysite name. Not even the .com part just the name so that surfer knows they are going to the paysite.

Just like the non blind examples you posted.

Probably not much to discuss? You have a pretty right on interpretation I think.

[MrYum]

Yep, MadMax...you hit my internal rules right on the head

I have been seeing more sites lately using text like 'more blah blah here' with the link going to the sponsor. Without the name of the sponsor mentioned...or intro text stating 'free tour' or 'sample vids' or 'join here'...the links are pretty blind.

And yeah, the huge blocks of linked text are pretty annoying too

[Useless]

Amongst newer list owners, I think many of us have the same gut feelings on what is blind and what is not, but don't know when to reject for it because you we don't want to be the only schmuck rejecting for something minor if everyone else is going to list it. I have recently begun to take a more stern approach towards blind links and other things issues that don't have a solid, easily applied rule and have begun rejecting and notifying the submitter (when possible).

As far as what is blind and what's not - I pretty much agree with what has been stated thus far, but I don't like "Free Video" as a text link, unless it's with other text that expresses the link's true destination. "Chubby Cornholers has the best BBW anal fisting pics and videos - Check Out The Free Video" would be fine. "Every one loves to see elbow deep fisting in a fat babe's ass - Check Out The Free Video" is blind since the the surfer would expect to see the video upon clicking the link, and nothing else.

I don't think that most blind links are intentional, so I don't get upset by them. I just ask that they are corrected and the site resubmitted.

Other things that I'm beginning to break down on are the lack of spacing between gallery links and sponsor links and navigation in general. Free site builders need to add space between to gallery links and any sponsor text or banner so that a surfer intending on clicking one, doesn't get the other. When the surfer gets a page he doesn't expect, he assumes you have tricked him. Be careful when building. The navigation on a free site should OBVIOUS. I shouldn't have to search for the enter or gallery page links. It's when I'm searching for navigation to the next page when I find more reasons to reject a site. If the sponsor text links are all bigger than the enter link, something is wrong. If the gallery page links don't jump out at me when I hit the main page, something is wrong - you are deliberately hiding them. I really prefer to be able to see at least one gallery link without having to scroll down on the main page. That's not carved in stone. It all depends on the site and the submitter.

I will admit that names I recognize from this board get away with much more than submitters I've never heard of. If a friend stumbles in your yard drunk and pisses on your front porch, you call him an idiot and walk away. If a stranger pisses on your porch - you let your dogs deal with him.

[Surfn]

Blind links are just one factor I consider. Unless the blind link is really deliberate it is factored in with the rest of the site. Blind links certainly do not help the builder get listed.

I also agree wit UW the gallery links should be obvious and I do not like to scroll for the enter or gallery links either. If your site is the 40th site I have reviewed at the time I might reject it because I have to scroll.

[MrYum]

Originally Posted by Useless Warrior

Amongst newer list owners, I think many of us have the same gut feelings on what is blind and what is not, but don't know when to reject for it because you we don't want to be the only schmuck rejecting for something minor if everyone else is going to list it. I have recently begun to take a more stern approach towards blind links and other things issues that don't have a solid, easily applied rule and have begun rejecting and notifying the submitter (when possible).

As far as what is blind and what's not - I pretty much agree with what has been stated thus far, but I don't like "Free Video" as a text link, unless it's with other text that expresses the link's true destination. "Chubby Cornholers has the best BBW anal fisting pics and videos - Check Out The Free Video" would be fine. "Every one loves to see elbow deep fisting in a fat babe's ass - Check Out The Free Video" is blind since the the surfer would expect to see the video upon clicking the link, and nothing else.

I don't think that most blind links are intentional, so I don't get upset by them. I just ask that they are corrected and the site resubmitted.

Other things that I'm beginning to break down on are the lack of spacing between gallery links and sponsor links and navigation in general. Free site builders need to add space between to gallery links and any sponsor text or banner so that a surfer intending on clicking one, doesn't get the other. When the surfer gets a page he doesn't expect, he assumes you have tricked him. Be careful when building. The navigation on a free site should OBVIOUS. I shouldn't have to search for the enter or gallery page links. It's when I'm searching for navigation to the next page when I find more reasons to reject a site. If the sponsor text links are all bigger than the enter link, something is wrong. If the gallery page links don't jump out at me when I hit the main page, something is wrong - you are deliberately hiding them. I really prefer to be able to see at least one gallery link without having to scroll down on the main page. That's not carved in stone. It all depends on the site and the submitter.

I will admit that names I recognize from this board get away with much more than submitters I've never heard of. If a friend stumbles in your yard drunk and pisses on your front porch, you call him an idiot and walk away. If a stranger pisses on your porch - you let your dogs deal with him.

As usual, very well said UW

Especially the last part about the dogs

The consensus seems to be that there needs to be some sort of indication that the link is leading to a premium site. Whether that's by mentioning the name of the site, or 'take the tour', or 'check out the samples'...or some other clear way of indicating to the surfer that he is leaving the free site and heading off to a premium site.

Also agree with Surfn. Blind'ish links are just one factor in reviewing sites. But, an ugly site with questionable links is toast. An otherwise quality site sumbitted by someone I know...with 'iffy' links has a much better chance of getting listed.

Some of the toughest ones are from folks whose native language isn't english. I had one submitter who I think gave up on submitting to me. I tried sending mails over and over again and it didn't seem to help. Obviously not a native english speaker, the links were so bad...half the time time I had no idea wtf the builder was trying to tell the surfer

[MadMax]

I spend a lot of time rewriting descriptions, mainly from non english speaking submitters. I don't mind that...but when I see that the browser language is US English it kinda baffles me.

Another important factor is what category a site's been submitted to. The high submit cats like Big Tits, Mature, Amateur, etc. have a ton of competition already, so an iffy link or two is a lot more likely to cause a decline in competetive cats.

It's cool to see that so many of us are basically on the same page

[MrYum]

Originally Posted by MadMax

I spend a lot of time rewriting descriptions, mainly from non english speaking submitters. I don't mind that...but when I see that the browser language is US English it kinda baffles me.

Another important factor is what category a site's been submitted to. The high submit cats like Big Tits, Mature, Amateur, etc. have a ton of competition already, so an iffy link or two is a lot more likely to cause a decline in competetive cats.

It's cool to see that so many of us are basically on the same page

I don't really mind re-writing the descriptions. Actually, I usually do that anyway...though I do have a few submitters that say pretty much what I would

It's when the text used all over the site makes no sense that gets tough. Hard to imagine the submitter makes any sales that way too.
"UHHH what was the night - big ORGY
We have videos from there - SEE uhhh"
Yup, that was linked text

Yea, I'm very glad you asked to Max. Been wondering if I was being a bit too tight on some links. Good to know we seem to be on the same or a similar page

[Ramster]

I didn't read everything people said but my biggest declines are:

"FREE MOVIE SAMPLES"
"FREE TRAILER MOVIES HERE"

...and similar. That is blind and I decline for it. They even have their own reject reason.

Another link is MORE PICS HERE when it goes to the paysite.

[MadMax]

Originally Posted by Ramster

I didn't read everything people said but my biggest declines are:

"FREE MOVIE SAMPLES"
"FREE TRAILER MOVIES HERE"

...and similar. That is blind and I decline for it. They even have their own reject reason.

Another link is MORE PICS HERE when it goes to the paysite.

Yup, I didn't mention those but I'm right there with ya.

[Ann Omness]

My two pet peeves in regard to blind links:

1) Sponsor banners that include thumbs the same size as the gallery thumbs. Brunob comes to mind. They look and feel and smell like blind links to me. I used to email the webmasters using these, but they don't respond and continue to submit the same thing, so now I just delete the sites when I see them.

2) The use of a script that hides the link URLs in the status bar. Effectively, that makes ALL the links blind links. I'm not willing to navigate around a site that does that, and I don't expect my traffic to. Site deleted.

[cybersexhound]

Ive been working on a project for betabridge.com trying to improve my click through ratio and so far Ive come up with this: http://www.cybersexhound.com/betabridge/mission3/
I have followed all of the guidlines they have given me but am unsure of if its a blind link. Another thing which I question is whether or not http://www.cybersexhound.com/betabri...ion3/index.htm is considered a FPA - I would think not because only a couple words are linked however it does really get into the specifics of the site I am advertising. Let me know what you guys think. I dont want to decieve the browser however I have to do something to start these sales up

[MadMax]

Hey Cybersexhound,

Actually, I'm really glad you decided to post your question in this thread. This is a great thread to keep a discussion going and get opinions from multiple LL owners on what is and isn't a blind link. What I'm going to do here is go through that site a page at a time, let you know what's blind, and make suggestions on how to both correct the blind links and help improve your click through. I also have a couple suggestions for you in general that will help jumpstart your sales.

General suggestions:

Since you're still pretty new at this, promoting sites that don't offer free or cheap trials is going to be a difficult hurdle for you to overcome. That site only offers one signup option, and that's $29.95/mo. recurring. You've got to be pretty savvy to pre-sell a membership like that, so I'm going to STRONGLY advise you to start promoting some sponsors that offer payouts of $25-$35 on trial memberships of Free to $4.95. It's a lot easier to get someone to whip out their credit card for a smaller amount, and while you're learning those are the kinds of sales you're more likely to be able to get. I've seen your posts in other threads about having difficulty making sales and I promise you this is a big factor in those problems.

On to the site:

Warning page, http://www.cybersexhound.com/betabridge/mission3/
Since all 3 of your ads are in a table cell that's clearly separated from the rest of the page by the background, you might get away with the blind text links. This is what I would change though:

--Change "HOTTEST PANTIEHOSE BABES ON THE INTERNET" to "VISIT PANTYHOSE UNCOVERED FOR HOTTEST PANTIEHOSE BABES ON THE INTERNET"
--That baby blue text is difficult to read agains the white background, so change it to a color that stands out.
--Change "CLICK HERE FOR TOP SHELF PANTYHOSE COVERED PUSSY!" to "INSTANT ACCESS TO TOP SHELF PANTYHOSE COVERED PUSSY!"

Main Page, http://www.cybersexhound.com/betabri...ion3/index.htm
This one really needs some work. First off, when the page loads there's not a single clickable link without scrolling down. This is bad for a couple reasons. There are many LLs that won't list sites where they have to scroll down to get to the gallery links. Also, you're wasting prime real-estate. There should never be any scroll point anywhere on a free site where there's not a clickable ad to the sponsor.

What I would do:
--bring your first gallery link up above that tower of 4 unlinked pics, so there's a gallery link available when the page loads.
--This linked text is fine, and it should be a the top of the white cell you're using for an ad: "Enjoy the benefits that come with being a member of the ultimate pantyhose porn site!". Give them a link, then explain the benefits of membership, then give another link or two.
--Drop the "We are confident" from this phrase: "We are confident you will never have to search for pantyhose porn again!" Just say "You'll never have to search for top notch pantyhose porn again!"
--The linked "pantyhose sex" could be considered blind, but not necessarily...it would depend on the reviewer. In any case, I would unlink that text and add linked text saying "Get Your Free Samples Now At Pantyhose Uncovered!" at the bottom of that sales text.

Gallery One: http://www.cybersexhound.com/betabri.../gallery1.html
First off, you've only got two sponsor links when you could have three. This is a wasted opportunity to sell. You've also got a big blind link as your first ad. With three lines of text that don't even mention where the link goes, that's an instant decline.

What I would do:
--Get rid of the text at the top "Pantyhose Fantasies offers free pantyhose pics of women in pantyhose". You've already said it twice, and that's now where you need to put an ad on your gallery pages. The first thing they should see is an ad. Change that to linked text saying "TAKE THE FREE TOUR NOW!"
--You've got a couple choices for fixing that big blind link, and the best one is this: Either replace that unlinked bar of pics just above your ad with a banner, or add some text like "Visit Pantyhose Uncovered" on top of the pics to turn them into a banner, then link that too. Otherwise, you need to add something to that text to make it obvious that it's a sponsor link, because right now its really blind.

Gallery Two, http://www.cybersexhound.com/betabri.../gallery2.html
Same problems as gallery one, with the same solutions.

What I would do:
--Get rid of the text at the top "Pantyhose Fantasies offers free pantyhose pics of women in pantyhose" and replace it with a text link to sponsor saying "What are you waiting for? Instant Access is right here!"
--What you have for your first ad currently is really two blind links. Fix that by replacing the graphic with a banner or adding text to the graphic to make it a banner. This will make those two blind links non-blind since they're immediately adjacent to a banner an thus part of an obvious ad, and also take two independent ads and make them one so you can add the third at the top like I said.



Thus ends this episode of MadMax's blind link school

Go forth, grasshopper, go forth and sell

[cybersexhound]

lol I really appreciate you taking the time out to give me this advise. I will be making those changes today. Thank you

[cybersexhound]

OK I went ahead and made those changes which brings up more questions

http://www.cybersexhound.com/betabri.../gallery1.html
TAKE THE FREE TOUR NOW! - this is not considered a blind link?

and same for here:
http://www.cybersexhound.com/betabri.../gallery2.html
What are you waiting for? Instant Access is right here!

If there is anything I misunderstood please let me know.

- also as far as the affiliate I am using it is part if the project I am working on's requirments so i cant change that however in my normal sites I do indeed try to go for the 1.99 special lol and hope they forget about it.

[MadMax]

MUCH better

As to your questions, nobody would call a link inviting the surfer to take a free tour as blind, because you're telling them that the tour is free and implying they'll have to pay for more than the tour

A link that says "instant access" isn't blind, because it tells the surfer they can GET access, but doesn't promise them free access

The last thing I'll mention is the main page...you can put the first gallery link above the tower of 4 unlinked pics and the second below it...thus forcing the surfer to scroll down for the second gallery and see the rest of your ad

[cybersexhound]

that really helps out allot in general - I think that would help out other newbies too - hope they are reading

one more thing - regarding the fpa?
on index.htm is this considered a fpa or no?

[MrYum]

Nicely done Max! A very thorough review and right on target

CBH...the tweaks Max suggested will definitely make a difference in both acceptance and sales

I'd gladly accept that site now

[msanchez]

Top notch advice Max, Well written and right on.

Waiting for the next epsiode!

[CalModels]

OK so here is my contribution to this confusion... and its something that popped into my mostly empty head on one of Max's replies to another question on links I had in the newbies section...

The concensus (is that a word?) seems to be that if its an external link that takes the surfer to a site where he will have to pay and its "masked" as possibly leading to more free stuff then its blind... but what if it takes the surfer to a site that has free shit? For CalModels, since its completely for free, if I were to put "Free Lingerie Models Here" would that be rejectamable?

Secondly, for my Jism.ca root, its just a dump of links to tour pages for PimpRoll but all the pages do have free stuff and if I were to use "Free Porn Links" would that be blind?

Or say if I put in a link to the root of the domain say "Copyright Jism.ca" or some shit like that, would that be blind?

Also (and maybe this is the wrong place to ask but Ill ask anyway) a link to the root of the domain... still unclear if it would be included in the three allowed outgoing links per page or if LL's would let an honest guy trying to make a few bucks off porn get away with having that as the fouth link hehe...

[MrYum]

Hey there CalModels

Consensus = "An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole" Yep, it's a word!

As to your questions;

I haven't looked at your site CalModels...so not sure about that one. But, generally even with 'free' join sites...the surfer is still required to join the site. My general rule of thumb is...if the surfer is required to 'join' the site...it's a paysite...and links to that site should be non blind.

In the case of your site, it shouldn't be a big deal to mention the site name in your links...might even be better for you se wise. "Free Lingerie Models at Cal Models" got a nice ring to it even

I'm not sure how other reviewers handle the domain root hub links. For myself and most of my submitters, again...most folks do mention the site name in the link. In your specific example, if those are all paysite tour links...I'd say you'd be pushing it. After all, yes the tours are free...but to get anything good...the surfer has to 'join'. Damn, there's that 'join' thang again

Now, if you had a page of sponsor hosted free sites and/or galleries there...then you've got some free stuff for the surfer. A 'More Free Porn Links' link to that kind of content would probably be acceptable.

I don't think linking your copyright to the root would really be considered blind. But, it would definitely be included in the 3 outbound links rule of most link sites.

[Sean416]

wow, I didnt realize so much could be said about blind links. :p

I think there's a balance between enforcing quality standards and also being able to take a step back from decline mode and realizing this stuff isn't all that important in the end.

The focus of link lists is to get good search engine traffic and pass it on to your sponsors and the freesites which are submitted to you. By being too strict you're taking the fun out of this business and being over analytical. If somebody submits top notch quality content and stuff I know my surfers want to see, but he's using a questionable method of linking to his sponsor, I dont penalize both the submitter and my surfers by not listing the site. I let it slide. If some retard is constantly submitting the same crap content and is purposely making an attempt at deceiving surfers into clicking on shitty links, then I dont list it. It's as simple as that.

The day I break down "what is a blind link" into a science, is the day I'll leave porn and get into accounting or some shit.

Just my opinion, not meant to offend any posters here, meant to show a different perspective.

[Talleyrand]

DEAR SIR:

If a lot of link list owners have its doubts about what is a blind link, and they have its own point of view:
Could you imagine what difficult is for a webmaster to understand well what is a blind link?
I think that is a good idea that in the rules the link list owners writte something like: "The text links must to include the name of sponsor site", for example; because when the webmaster read a rule like this have very clear the point. However, when read "Not blind links" it is not so clear.

Best regards,

TALLEYRAND

Originally Posted by MadMax

I'd like to get a discussion going with the other LL owners here on blind links. This is partially out of my own curiosity regarding the policies of others, and partially to give all the submitters who post here an idea of what will and won't fly at various LLs since most submitters try to build sites that are good with just about everyone. I'd like to invite all the LL owners to be longwinded on this one if you're willing to take the time.

By the same token, my experience on my own sites and hubs is that blind link traffic is damn near worthless when it comes to conversions.

Everyone's got a somewhat different definition of what is and isn't blind, and it seems I'm more strict than many on blind links.

So, the question is...what exact types of links do you consider blind? There are some that are kinda "no brainers" like thumbs linked to the sponsor. With text links and graphic text links, where do you draw the line?

I look at every link individually, and try to put my head into "surfer mode" when reviewing. The essence of everybody's rules on blind links boils down to whether or not the surfer is being deceived into clicking a link. IMO a surfer should always know when a link will take them to another site and basically what to expect there.

Often it has to do with how closely a given text link is positioned to a banner ad, since they're often and very effectively mixed. Any text link that's in the same link tag as a banner that's clearly advertising passes the test, since it changes on mouseover when the cursor's over the banner. I consider text links that are immediately adjacent to a banner (top, bottom, side) and in the same link tag to be an extension of the banner.

With "stand alone" text links, my rule is that it has to be clear to "Joe Surfer" that they're going to another site and basically what to expect there. Any text link that includes phrases like "take the tour", "instant access", "at sponsorsite.com", "free previews", "visit whatever.com", "free samples", "join free", "join now" or any of dozens of other variations on the same idea works fine with me.

I've been seeing more and more of these 3 and 4 line text links that make no mention of a pay site and they're starting to wear on me. You can't possibly tell me you don't have room for a mention of the paysite or membership or something like what's listed above when you're using multiple lines of text.

By the same token, adding phrases like this but changing the text color to something that really blends into the background I consider an obvious attempt at deception.

Text links that only have "click here" linked but are surrounded or preceded by text talking about the paysite are cool with me as well. A big stand alone "click here" is an exception with me and I don't mind them as long as they don't go to exploits...if a surfer has strayed so far from the pack that they'll knowingly click a link without having any idea where it goes then I'm too busy to worry about them



I'd consider the following examples (taken from today's reviews) to be blind links if they go to a sponsor:

"Take a look at the photos of these two beauties kissing,
and see all the lust, all the passion, all the innocence unfolding.
Their wet tongues gently lick each other, and the sparks fly.
CLICK HERE to find out what they are up to."

"Watch our hotgirls fuck and lick
each other for their
FIRST TIME."

"Every girl is a lesbian inside.It's just a matter of time until she let's it all go,and we are there when she does.
See her very first time with another girl.
It's a beautiful thing, and you can see it all NOW!"

" Unlimited quantities of adult movies, streaming and downloadale -
... - the largest Online Movie Collection !!!
Download Full Length Studio Porn Movies !!!"




These are similar text links from today's reviews that I don't consider to be blind, and they're still damned good advertising IMO:

"Where the the ladies of sophistication and experience love to play ....
With cocks!
X-Rated Mature Porn.com"


"Come along to
We Live Together...
See what happens when hot girls like us get
REALLY turned on!!"

"THE MOST EROTIC FOOT SEX YOU'LL CUM ACROSS
... Foot Kink.com features hot foot worship, explosive foot jobs, sexy toe sucking and so much more!"




So, what does everyone else think?