New free site format (version 1.5)

[LeRoy]

LATE EDIT: Here's a basic mock-up of an index page. http://www.theactusreus.com/schlampe/test.html Assume that the rest of the free site would be business as usual. Who is harmed or hindered by that?

Great example UW. I really like the way this is going.

Crazy Sy and Harry Muff ones are good too

[Mateusz]

First of all...as a link list owner I wouldnt mind listing such free sites but as a free site builder I'd never build one.
Most posted arguments pro new free site formula are just bullshit

1) they still wont be updated, and still will be mirrored by those who submit to more than 40 (or whatever number) link lists

2) it wont be any easier for submiters, why should it?
From what I'm seeing more and more free site submiters are using recip table generarots anyway, and those who build by hand (like me) most likely dont give a rats ass if they need to copy all recips onto one page or three.
I noticed many submitters are just changing headers, autogenerating recip tables and submiting - no wonders search engines treat these sites (especially code of the recips which are always in the same order and place) as spam, but I've checked my stats and...
I have different domain for most niches I submit; so far I have 8-12 free sites (submited over two years) on each domain and each domain got 50-650 se hits in march. Some will say thats not much but multiple it by 12 months and 20+ domains and you will get a decent number - definately worth an effort to put some heart in those free sites.

But I also see huge potential benefit

Originally Posted by Useless Warrior

Let's not forget that when you link out to 40+ link lists from your Pr0 warning pages, 40+ indexed and ranked link list category pages are LINKING BACK TO IT. It serves both sides, the submitter and the list owner.

But instead of 40+ recips I belive it would be much better for both sites if submiter placed ONE SINGLE recip link on domain root, allowing him submiting as many free sites from this domain as he wants.
Now that should help getting better rank in se for both
-reducing outgoing links on the free site,
-gaining some decent link backs for LL owner
and finally... making submiters life much easier.

Actually thats the idea I've been working on since a while - I've re-written all my scripts and I'll be allowing such recips real soon.

[HarryM]

There's a few sites around that allow that now, porn-xxx-porn.com is one I submit to, has good traffic too.
I like that model, if you can keep track of the non-recipricol recips that's great, hope your script works out.

One thing to consider, some people have just an FPA or a pile of crap on their index though, would they get the same treatment as someone with an actual decent site?

[JohnnyR]

Yeah I've seen the examples. It still looks like change for the sake of changing to me.

People are now and have always been bitching about how limited they are with their designs, that all their sites look the same etc. I for one fail to see how having to cram more stuff on 1 page will give anyone more design options... if anything you'll have less space to move stuff around. If one doesn't have imagination now, it's hardly likely they'll gain anything by the new format either. Who said not to arrange all the recips in a single column with the old format? I've done it, others have done it... it was perfectly acceptable before as well.

I just don't know... It doesn't look good to me, not from a submitters' pov and not from a LL owner's one either. I mean... look: UW, since you're playing "devil's advocate" (I know, I know, you really belive in this). But you have 2 LLs, right? Do you think they'd both make the 40 cut? Because I'm tellin ya, all the people that you actually want submitting to you are now submitting to 60 or maybe 80 LLs, and they're not gonna mirror anymore if with the new rules. They're just gonna drop the "dead weight" and the "reciprocical" submits. So are you willing to pull out your gun and pull the trigger on whichever one of your LLs doesn't make it? Am I the only one seeing A LOT of LLs going under with this? And, ironically, I'm seeing that Greenie and MML and the other top dogs that don't have to worry about it are the ones fighting to keep them alive, while their owners are throwing celebratory designs around the board!

It's about time someone sums this up, and since kit dropped the bomb and left leaving us to fight amongst ourselves, I'm voting UW - cuz he said he could shut down our points but he just doesn't wanna argue with friends. Well I don't think anyone will consider it arguing. We just need to draw a line and check out the pros and the cons and see if the gain is worth the trouble, cuz there's something stinky here and I don't think it's just because Mateusz's feet smell

BTW, I REALLY like Mateusz's idea of placing 1 link on the root of the domain and be done with it!

[JustRobert]

Originally Posted by Useless Warrior

LATE EDIT: Here's a basic mock-up of an index page. http://www.theactusreus.com/schlampe/test.html Assume that the rest of the free site would be business as usual. Who is harmed or hindered by that?

I made up a similiar example last night from a recent site I built that had links down the right side to 12 LL's. The single recip would have allowed me to put 40 in the same area. I like the idea. Only negative is that there may be less recip hits coming across which may be a problem for some.

Originally Posted by amadman

As for recips, why limit people to just one way to put recips when the current model allows that way and many others?

I agree and did a test with what most do with their recips, including myself, which is a 4x4 table. If you do 1x4 with 10 down each it can be the same is size.

Originally Posted by amadman

If the recips were LL titles and not a bunch of blind links.

This one I really like. No spammy blind link stuff, which I have been guilty of myself. Just a link to your actual domain name with or without the .com at the end for those that want it. All their spammy stuff can be placed in a title tag. This I think would make it even across the board and stop the problems that MML has discussed with recips getting way out of hand with blind links and third party links snuck in.

The rest of the freesite as UW stated can be business as usual. Or it can even be changed to a 2, 3, 4 or however many pages Greenie and the rest of the top dogs want just as long as the warning page stays.

[Tekster]

Originally Posted by Useless Warrior

...LATE EDIT: Here's a basic mock-up of an index page. http://www.theactusreus.com/schlampe/test.html Assume that the rest of the free site would be business as usual. Who is harmed or hindered by that?

UW, so what is the difference between that and what we are doing now, besides the number of recips?
So, instead of having 20 recips on a warning page we are going to allow up to 40? Well if we do that why not up to 80 and have two columns?

Is this what it comes down to now? Just the number of recips on the warning page?

[Mateusz]

Originally Posted by HarryM

There's a few sites around that allow that now, porn-xxx-porn.com is one I submit to, has good traffic too.
I like that model, if you can keep track of the non-recipricol recips that's great, hope your script works out.

One thing to consider, some people have just an FPA or a pile of crap on their index though, would they get the same treatment as someone with an actual decent site?

Yeah I know thats neither new idea, nor mine. (as far as I remember) Jell was allowing such recips couple of years ago - I never submited a single site but I like the idea.

When it comes to FPA on index.. well... to be honest didn't think of it yet but I guess everyone who takes the time to build quality free sites and not just copy same template without any keywords will take a minute to at least put some links on index so the se can grab them. Most likely it wont be a problem for me.

By the time I'll be finally implementing new scripts I'll be switching to partner only anyway and I'll definately cut those crappy submits I'm currently getting - generated with chameleon submitter where I'm groupped with sites that all belong to one owner and/or his bathroom gang

[Useless]

Originally Posted by Mateusz

But instead of 40+ recips I belive it would be much better for both sites if submiter placed ONE SINGLE recip link on domain root, allowing him submiting as many free sites from this domain as he wants.
Now that should help getting better rank in se for both
-reducing outgoing links on the free site,
-gaining some decent link backs for LL owner
and finally... making submiters life much easier.

I think domain root links may work very well for small link lists, like my own. But the larger lists would prefer quantity over quality, and I _think_ that actually serves them better SEO-wise. Each model has different needs. Unfortunately, the one example we have to go by, Jel's link list, didn't become anymore successful than most small start-ups.

One thing to keep in mind is that if you were using category recips on a free site and submitting it to 15-20 link lists, you are already accustomed to having 30-40 outgoing links on your index, not including ad links.

My best guess right now is that if any change does happen, there will be two types of link lists. Ones who only accept the current model and ones that will accept both. Those link list owners who appear to be open to the idea of the modified index also seem to like the idea of having a more favorable balance between content and advertising rather than a 3 links out rule. In other words, as long as the advertising doesn't over-power or conceal the content, there wouldn't be a specified restriction as to the number of ads.

Originally Posted by Tek Angel

Is this what it comes down to now? Just the number of recips on the warning page?

Well, it was. But now it's becoming more of a revamp and change in policy. All of this may go nowhere, so don't worry too much.

If anyone has any suggestions, please PM me or email me - webmaster AT maladaptedmedia.com

[BuZzZ]

[Mateusz]

Originally Posted by Useless Warrior

I think domain root links may work very well for small link lists, like my own. But the larger lists would prefer quantity over quality, and I _think_ that actually serves them better SEO-wise.

Actually big LLs are on a win win position since most submitters group recips by traffic/seo rank (not always but most times both go together) and IMO these mirrors have the highest chance (if any) to get ranked in SE

Originally Posted by Useless Warrior

My best guess right now is that if any change does happen, there will be two types of link lists. Ones who only accept the current model and ones that will accept both. .

Yeah, I think its the most possible scenario. There used to be TGPs, LLs, AVSs, TGP2s and lately blogs popped up, I think there is still some place left for another type of sites.

Originally Posted by Useless Warrior

Those link list owners who appear to be open to the idea of the modified index also seem to like the idea of having a more favorable balance between content and advertising rather than a 3 links out rule. In other words, as long as the advertising doesn't over-power or conceal the content, there wouldn't be a specified restriction as to the number of ads.

Thats true, there are user friendly (clean, easy to navigate) sites with 3 ads and there are sites with just one or two blind links that would trick the (especially newbie) surfers to visit sponsors.

Thats like selling anything else - there are customers that are willing to pay big cash to get their needs fullfiled but they sure wont spent a penny if they are forced to buy stuff they don't want.

Anyway.. I think 3ads / 12 pics is good ratio and we dont really need more. Definately we shouldnt give out more free content either but I think the content should be the highest quality possible - just the way its in the members area. Not sure how many LLs have this rule but it exists for sure (even if its unofficial one) - pics should be around 100kb. With the all broadband connections we've got today that's just insane - I'd be more than happy to serve 1024x768 or even bigger photos but due to 100kb rule I simply cant

[Floyd]

So as to not hijack CrazySy's thread I'm going to ask over here.. what does everyone think of THIS SITE I've taken some of the ideas brought up here and tried to keep it within the basic link list rules... would anyone list it?

[SheepGuy]

I would

[CrazySy]

Originally Posted by Floyd

So as to not hijack CrazySy's thread I'm going to ask over here.. what does everyone think of THIS SITE I've taken some of the ideas brought up here and tried to keep it within the basic link list rules... would anyone list it?

Floyd, feel free to post any question you want in that thread. I am very well aware that my index page is extremely aggressive, but I made it that way for one reason only and the reason is, I am giving access to my galleries directly from my index page. I knew many people will look at it as a totally fucked up site, and I have no problem with that. I just need to try and see how that concept works, many will list that site and many won't, and I have no intention of changing it. I either submit it to whoever would list it, or keep it for my own use

[Lemmy]

Originally Posted by Floyd

So as to not hijack CrazySy's thread I'm going to ask over here.. what does everyone think of THIS SITE I've taken some of the ideas brought up here and tried to keep it within the basic link list rules... would anyone list it?

I would. But as far as it pertains to the concerns originally posted by Kit I don't see how it solves anything save possibly the need to make mirrors. So what we're left with is a looser definition of what a freesite should look like (or tighter if this end up being the ONLY allowed formad, by now my head is spinning).

For me personally I'm leaning towards accepting anything that looks decent, has something to offer, and you're not trying to fuck the surfer. Seeing as I probably won't make most people's top 40 it doesn't matter much anyway.

[NY Jester]

I like the index to gallery page links...looks good Floyd.

[Useless]

Originally Posted by Floyd

So as to not hijack CrazySy's thread I'm going to ask over here.. what does everyone think of THIS SITE I've taken some of the ideas brought up here and tried to keep it within the basic link list rules... would anyone list it?

Without hesitation.

Originally Posted by CrazySy

I am giving access to my galleries directly from my index page. I knew many people will look at it as a totally fucked up site, and I have no problem with that. I just need to try and see how that concept works, many will list that site and many won't, and I have no intention of changing it. I either submit it to whoever would list it, or keep it for my own use

I can't remember who it was, but I used to have a submitter that built sites similar to Floyd's example there. I call them linear, where the index leads directly to the first gallery, the first gallery links to the second, and so on. The main page has always been nothing more than an FPA broken into 3 ad blocks anyway. If a submitter wants to experiment with form and drop that page, or offer navigation around it the way you have in your example, I don't see why any reviewer would care.

Originally Posted by Lemmy

I would. But as far as it pertains to the concerns originally posted by Kit I don't see how it solves anything save possibly the need to make mirrors. So what we're left with is a looser definition of what a freesite should look like (or tighter if this end up being the ONLY allowed formad, by now my head is spinning).

At this point, I'm on a campaign of free site reform, which includes a looser definition so that builders have some room to breathe and be creative, yet the content isn't hidden from the surfer. Though we have to credit kit with bringing this to the table, I'm fairly certain that we are now on a different track than what he had proposed. Perhaps the end result will meet both of our needs and kit will be willing to list a site like Floyd's beautiful example. Who knows?

[JustRobert]

Floyd,
I would if my list was on there and most of the others I know would accept this. I really do not expect the bigger, trusted and succesful lists to do so, though I could be wrong like many other things.

[Sergeyka]

Guys!
Please who agrees to accept free site version 1.5 (new format) spam your LLs here:

http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/...676#post395676

Sample

http://www.hornyfellow.com/free/hot-blonde-babe/

Thanks

[ponygirl]

Originally Posted by Sergeyka

Guys!
Please who agrees to accept free site version 1.5 (new format) spam your LLs here:

http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/...676#post395676

well, it's a bit early for me to say I'd take any site with this new format, I think there's lots of things that have to be worked out first. I feel like we're still in the discussion stages of this, for me anyway...

Originally Posted by Sergeyka

Sample

http://www.hornyfellow.com/free/hot-blonde-babe/

Thanks

and this is why. No offence, it is a nice looking site, but we have talked about not wanting a list of blind spammy links down the side for the recip table, and I'm not sure anyone's agreed on a number or anything, or where the content links are etc. Those are the first things that come to mind.

I like the idea of making some changes, but I'm not going to just throw out all the old rules overnight. There's still lots of people who should have input into any changes that haven't posted their thoughts here.

my 2cents

[Sergeyka]

Old format will work as before

Ok
Let's write new rules in a place?

[KG Gary]

Originally Posted by ponygirl

I like the idea of making some changes, but I'm not going to just throw out all the old rules overnight. There's still lots of people who should have input into any changes that haven't posted their thoughts here.

my 2cents

I totally agree.


The reasons for this new design have already been slammed by many here, and all of the current rules are there for a reason.
From a regular freesite builder's perspective I'm excited about the possibility of more freedom, but I'm also very concerned.

My sales from the freesites I build are gradually increasing, slowly but surely. How will a new format affect those sales? Maybe freesites have evolved to a good level for creating sales already, and maybe any changes will see a serious sales drop.

Also, Kit hasn't been back to state how flexible, (or not), he's going to be with his proposed changes, so it's difficult to know how to react.
A split between link list owners over this issue will be a huge inconvenience for freesite builders.
Build two versions of the same site, or drop a load of excellent free traffic?

Ok
Let's write new rules in a place?

Slow down a bit! What new rules?
Until the driving forces in link lists decide what's happening there aren't any new rules. Greenguy has already shot down just about everything that has been proposed, and without more input nothing will change.

[Preacher]

Originally Posted by Floyd

So as to not hijack CrazySy's thread I'm going to ask over here.. what does everyone think of THIS SITE I've taken some of the ideas brought up here and tried to keep it within the basic link list rules... would anyone list it?

Yes I would, looks good Floyd.

[stuveltje]

Originally Posted by Floyd

So as to not hijack CrazySy's thread I'm going to ask over here.. what does everyone think of THIS SITE I've taken some of the ideas brought up here and tried to keep it within the basic link list rules... would anyone list it?

i will not list it.

[Greenguy]

I think you're all fucked in the head. We're ten hours from the fucking fun park and you want to bail out.

Originally Posted by Useless Warrior

...You aren't going to wake up tomorrow and see that Such and Such Link List now only accepts free sites with 50 other recip links on them...

I woke up to that
http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/...ad.php?t=46310

Originally Posted by Useless Warrior

...LATE EDIT: Here's a basic mock-up of an index page. http://www.theactusreus.com/schlampe/test.html Assume that the rest of the free site would be business as usual. Who is harmed or hindered by that?

I don't think I'd have had a problem with that one last week. Hell, you could move 1/2 those recips to the other side (sorry, 2 include files instead of 1) and probably make DDave happy And, if you made that into a table with 4 cells (which you can do with one simple include) and jammed in there under the warning, you'd have a page that I know I see & accept every time I review.

Am I missing something? Are there LL's out there that have a cap on the number of recips you can have on a warning page?

Originally Posted by Sergeyka

...Sample

http://www.hornyfellow.com/free/hot-blonde-babe/...

...All the babes are shotted with high-definition cameras...

Originally Posted by Sergeyka

Old format will work as before

Ok
Let's write new rules in a place?

Only if the new rules include that you must use poor grammar

***

I'd also like to go on record & state that I like "Hairless Chest Mateusz" much better

[ArtWilliams]

2 Questions:

1. How do the proposed changes make it more friendly to Google?
2. Doesn't the fact the the surfer must click three times to find the porn increase the webmaster's chance of a sale?

Inquiring minds want to know!

Originally Posted by kit

Free sites is a bad quality site in therms of Google because:
1) They never updates.
2) Text content duplicates many times and equal texts of hundreds other free sites.
3) They don't have new incoming links after initial listing in Link Sites.

Free site is a bad quality site in therms of Surfers because:
1) They have bad usability: surfer must click 3 times to see the gallery (warning page -> main page -> gallery).
2) They have small content amount (2-3 galleries)