When is a free site a TGP? Have I missed something?

[nottslad]

Been away from the free site scene for a few months concentrating on other stuff, but made a new site today.

I went to submit it to my usual places and was surprised to find that on two separate sites my domain seems to be blacklisted:

All-sex-links.com

I dont accept galleries, so please, find other (sic) place to submit.

Linksonsex.com

Sorry, we cannot accept you (sic) link. TGP / MGP pages not allowed.

I've never made a gallery in my life, I have about 20 or so free sites that I've mixed in with a few FHG's on the root domain as a hub. I emailed both sites, but the email provided for all-sex-links was returned as undeliverable ??!!

I then go to another site to submit to (I forget which one) but don't bother as the rules say it has to be on a root domain and have a PR of 2! WTF, I have to register a new domain for each site I build, wait for the PR update which is next to worthless anyway and then submit? I'll pass thanks.

This was the message:

Note: Due to changes by google, we no longer accept galleries. Only top level domains.

Example: www.whatever.com is fine, www.whatever.com/gallery/index.html is not.

So, I guess the crux of the question is what are the latest rules in this ever changing world that I may have overlooked? If you can point me in the direction of appropriate threads I'd be grateful.

Oh and by the way here's my site that I tried to submit today:

My Supposed TGP/MGP/Gallery"

[MrYum]

Welcome back Nottslad

No idea about the banning, but memory is telling me both those sites have the same owner. Perhaps a hiccup with his script...

As to the other site, yes there are some 'over the top' rules at a few lists.

Took a look at your site...actually it's pretty good. A few comments though...cuz I'm like that

Your color scheme could use a little work, though it's not bad enough to get your site declined.

Your images are on the smallish side, but within the acceptable range.

The only thing I see that's a deal breaker with a lot of lists is your protected whois. Many link sites want to know who they're doing business with...mine included. Other than that, your site looks well within the acceptable range and is better than half the sites submitted to me daily

Added: No, you certainly don't need a new domain for every free site...lol

[Shark]

Hm... I can't open this one http://www.whatever.com/gallery/index.html, it's 404 here.
Those LLs of two different owners. Both members of awm.name

[Useless]

Originally Posted by Shark

Hm... I can't open this one http://www.whatever.com/gallery/index.html, it's 404 here.

Originally Posted by Shark

Those LLs of two difrent owners. Both members of awm.name

Well, there's a surprise. Not the greatest minds in the business.

[Shark]

Hey, Useless. That one www.whatever.com is a real site. Topic starter not posted any other links of FS for example... So maybe it's just example of something, maybe it's his links... Any way these http://www.whatever.com/gallery/index.html 404 on my screen.

[ronnie]

Originally Posted by Shark

Hey, Useless. That one www.whatever.com is a real site. Topic starter not posted any other links of FS for example... So maybe it's just eaxample of something, maybe it's his links... Any way these http://www.whatever.com/gallery/index.html 404 on my screen.

Did you happen to look at the url?

The root only linkback sure seems extreme, site would have to be pumping good traffic, or have balls.

ronnie

[Shark]

I not surprised to see URL like that. Seen much strange URLs of our posters.

[Greenguy]

404? yeah.

nottslad - your example looks fine - I'm not sure why those message came up as far as galleries & I'd just move on & forget about the ass-hat that wants sites on the root submitted.

[Useless]

Originally Posted by Shark

Hey, Useless. That one www.whatever.com is a real site. Topic starter not posted any other links of FS for example... So maybe it's just example of something, maybe it's his links... Any way these http://www.whatever.com/gallery/index.html 404 on my screen.

Look back at his post. You'll see the word Example before the link. Plus, he's quoting one of those brilliant awm webmasters.

[Shark]

About those LLs: i submitted in there, all was approved, not remember rules like that, maybe they done it only in last months. Any way traffic from them not interested me more.. To small and to short.

[nottslad]

Thanks for the replies, and the restoration of my faith that not all has changed in the last 6 months. Seems like those two sites are a quirk and not representative of the majority so I'll simply move on as suggested and leave them off my list for next time.

Cheers for the review MrYum, much appreciated. Colour schemes never have been my forte but I'll take on board the advice about making the images bigger next time - do you mean the full size pics or the thumbs or both?

Re the protected (I prefer the word 'private') whois, yes I'm aware that it's a little frowned upon. I dont have a company name or address to use, so it would have to be my real address and phone number. I'm reluctant to publicise that with the obvious problems that could create, so for now I'll take the knocks that come from having protected whois.

[MrYum]

Originally Posted by nottslad

Thanks for the replies, and the restoration of my faith that not all has changed in the last 6 months. Seems like those two sites are a quirk and not representative of the majority so I'll simply move on as suggested and leave them off my list for next time.

Cheers for the review MrYum, much appreciated. Colour schemes never have been my forte but I'll take on board the advice about making the images bigger next time - do you mean the full size pics or the thumbs or both?

Re the protected (I prefer the word 'private') whois, yes I'm aware that it's a little frowned upon. I dont have a company name or address to use, so it would have to be my real address and phone number. I'm reluctant to publicise that with the obvious problems that could create, so for now I'll take the knocks that come from having protected whois.

Yea, I think you'll find that most of the major lists have very similar rules. A few minor nuances here and there, but nothing overly dramatic...like requiring root domain links

Color schemes are tough sometimes. I've seen a few color tools online, but have never found one I really liked enough to recommend. Best advice is to try to keep your text and links in contrast to the bg color, without using colors that look harsh...if that makes any sense.

On the images, I was actually referring to both the thumbs and the full size. Again, yours are certainly within the acceptable range. But, by what I see in reviews...and what looks good...they are a little small.

As to the 'private' whois, that may cost you more than you think. I don't really know how many link sites are enforcing the rule now, but think it's pretty widespread. Frankly, this is probably the most significant change to the basic rules in the past several months.

[nottslad]

Thanks once more Mr Yum for the valuable feedback.

Here's a link I came up with regarding colour matches - might be useful for some, I may use this next time:
http://www.colormatch.dk/

Thumbs and pics will definitely be increased in size for the next site.

Private versus public who is, the jury is still out.

[MrYum]

Glad to help Nottslad

Cool on the color matcher...it doesn't seem to work in Firefox, but if it helps you...that's what counts

Yea, only time will tell on the whois issue. But, I'd suggest that you really track your submissions as I'm pretty sure the issue will become clear fairly quickly.

[nottslad]

Just wanted to update this one.

I received a polite email from Igor who runs linksonsex.com. He expained that his script was kicking out that message because my images were linked as "<a href="1images/gallery002.jpg"></a>"

I realise now that the content I was using had all the images named as gallery***.jpg and that was what caused the problem.

Nice when a webmaster takes the time to explain things and give me something to watch for in the future.

[Greenguy]

That really is a stupid reason - since when does the name of the images mean it's a gallery or a free site?

[Toby]

Originally Posted by Greenguy

That really is a stupid reason - since when does the name of the images mean it's a gallery or a free site?

Agreed. When the script becomes smarter than the operator, better call Houston, cuz there's a problem!

[MrYum]

Originally Posted by nottslad

Just wanted to update this one.

I received a polite email from Igor who runs linksonsex.com. He expained that his script was kicking out that message because my images were linked as "<a href="1images/gallery002.jpg"></a>"

I realise now that the content I was using had all the images named as gallery***.jpg and that was what caused the problem.

Nice when a webmaster takes the time to explain things and give me something to watch for in the future.

That's absolutely nuts

I have never heard of anyone checking that...nor is there any valid reason to check image names. Other than perhaps to make sure someone isn't naming images something illegal.

Frankly, Nottslad...I wouldn't worry about that rejection and would move on. Don't know the owner of that list or why he would reject for that...makes no sense to me

[Linkster]

What would be really cool is to have a script thats that smart check domains used for LL names prior to buying them

[MrYum]

Originally Posted by Linkster

What would be really cool is to have a script thats that smart check domains used for LL names prior to buying them

Yea, that's another reason I'm inclined to dis-credit anything coming from that particular link site

[nottslad]

Ok, message received loud and clear.

I can understand that the usual unacceptable words (I'm sure you know the ones) if used for images would make a difference but the word 'gallery' hmmm.

Anyhow, I did appreciate him getting back to me to clarify things. I'd never have known why otherwise.

[Jel]

Wonder how many people got rejected for using gallery1.html, gallery2.html ....