New free site format (version 1.5)

[oldbrad]

"This thread is typically the thread you know nothing's gonna move with."

I took it as know nothing is, not know nothings. I don't think he was calling anyone a know nothing, just saying we know nothing will result from...

[SheepGuy]

The problem with any type of written communications is that the reader will sometimes misinterpret the frame of mind or the intent of the writer.
There seems to be a fair bit of that going on here, or at least I hope that's the case.
I would have thought that there would be a lot less heat in a discussion of ideas as to how some people want to experiment with the freesite format, some don't, and some LL owners will list some of those experiments, and some won't.
If we were all talking about this at a barbecue, I'm sure it would all be worked out amicably.

[oldbrad]

Using the link from the index to gallery 1, to gallery 2, etc. isn't anything new. It used to be used often by many people around 2001 or so. We used to use it to hopefully drive traffic to our link lists. I think JanTM used it with great results to build traffic to Booballistics by saying gallery 1 --> gallery 2 --- > more galleries.

This design works well for some, not as well for others. The truth is that it just comes down to how well you sell. Some people sell well from a completely scrambled or disorganized site. I don't, and have had my best sales (over 20 signups in 1 year) from a very clean site with minimal banners and regular traffic.

There is no reason to get rid of a warning page. Whether for piece of mind of the webmaster, a show of good faith to others, or simply more add room for free site builders. Those that want to should just remove the main page. It really does just come down to choice of how you want to make it.

If better se results are the overall goal, and not just the removal of warning pages, then indirect linking would probably be one of the most benefitial steps, aside from higher quality sites being made and submitted.

Most builders don't take advantage of the freedom they have right now in designing, quality or layout. Most follow the same pattern even though it isn't set in stone, but then complain for more freedom to change things up. I think it's less a result of things being too restrictive, and more a result of lack of imagination and willingness to switch things up.

Of course, many of those that are the exception to that are on this board. They bring great designs and original looks to their sites, which is a wonderful change of pace.

I would love to place recips on the main page, which should be a step in the right direction, as opposed to having on the index. This means possibly less pagerank to the link lists, but seems that it would more benefial in the long run even though it's just a small change.

I used to be able to do this as most dont require the index page recip, but i was hoping to find out if Kit would be willing to allow recips on the main page as opposed to the index only?

Brad

[amadman]

As for cap on recips.... There does have to be a line somewhere. But common sense should keep most people far from it.

I am sure many reviewers have seen the sites with the recips from every linklists on the net. Back when most people were using dialup these pages took many minutes to load. Not to mention looked like total crap.

[Greenguy]

Originally Posted by amadman

As for cap on recips.... There does have to be a line somewhere. But common sense should keep most people far from it...

Even though Kit did a horrendous job explaining this in his 1st post (Sergeyka shined a light on it for us) one of the points of 1.5 seems to be a large number of recips, to the point where a rule would be in place as far as the lowest number of recips you were allowed to use. I do agree that a rule like that should be in place - and I do have a rule that the minimum number of recips is 6 - but I don't see a need to increase that.

[amadman]

to the point where a rule would be in place as far as the lowest number of recips you were allowed to use.

Oh... I think I see now. Its not as much about submitters wanting to use more recips but more like LL requiring more recips to be used.

[Greenguy]

Originally Posted by amadman

Oh... I think I see now. Its not as much about submitters wanting to use more recips but more like LL requiring more recips to be used.

I think that the 1.5 submitters want to use more recips (instead of making mirrors) & they think that Link List owners will decline them if there's more than 20? 25? 30?

I really don't know, seeing as Kit never explained it & all we have to go on is Sergeyka posting that the rule should be 40+ while we look at his example 1.5 site that has 37 recips on it.

[oldbrad]

Why must it be the warning page to go as opposed to the main page?

[murray]

I have an idea, lets get rid of gallery pages and add more spammy shit recip links over 2 warning pages.

[LD]

Originally Posted by murray

I have an idea, lets get rid of gallery pages and add more spammy shit recip links over 2 warning pages.

LOL, when i first started I built doorway pages to sponsors signup page. Wasn't too popular with the reviewers....

[Greenguy]

I did miss one thing - 5 1.5 Free Sites were accepted by Sergeyka in 5 days. The popularity of this concept is mine boggling

[Sergeyka]

My bad English - your slow death


Dear owners big thanks!

[Greenguy]

For those of you that may have missed it, there's a tangent of this thread that has started up over in marc's thread - you can start to read it here:
http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/...191#post396191
But the long & short of it is very simple: Kit has invented the HUB

[borgivan]

Originally Posted by Greenie

But the long & short of it is very simple: Kit has invented the HUB

I imagine you sitting in front of your screen and chuckling with a demonic laugh at your own CLEVEREST post, thinkin it will shoot Kits head off and kill all his ideas and plans. Holy shit! I'm laughing, too !

[DangerDave]

Originally Posted by borgivan

I imagine you sitting in front of your screen and chuckling with a demonic laugh at your own CLEVEREST post, thinkin it will shoot Kits head off and kill all his ideas and plans. Holy shit! I'm laughing, too !

You have just got to love conspiracy theory bullshit...

GG is stating an opinion, and it just happens to be a fact that many of us support.. There is no anti-Kit agenda.

As many of us have pointed out.. there is nothing new in what is/has been proposed.

You can already build free sites with just about any number of recips - if they are properly presented and do not interfere with navigation.

You can already build free sites that link the galleries from the index page.

So what is new?
Re-invention is not "new".

DD

[Useless]

Originally Posted by DangerDave

There is no anti-Kit agenda.

I'm calling bullshit.

There's nothing new to the suggestions, yet there's an amazing amount of resistance to them. So what does that mean? Almost every statement Kit has made has been quoted and deliberately mis-interrupted so that the sheep will think he's a fool. No matter what anyone may think of Kit, he's no fool. I don't know how anyone reading this thread or Marc's thread couldn't see that much of this is a personal issue and nothing at all to do with business. Again, the suggestions don't deviate very far from the standard free site, but a thread created to ask which lists would accept them was treated as spam and moved.

The free sites that I want to build in the immediate future won't have a main page. There will be an index with a warning, either a table or sidebar of recips, and 2-3 galleries, each linked-to from the index by a thumb and text link. But I assume that they won't be listed by many of the bigger link lists since they aren't a traditional free site. Of course, I can't ask who would be willing to accept them in this forum, because that's apparently somehow threatening to the traditionalists.

[SheepGuy]

Originally Posted by Useless Warrior

The free sites that I want to build in the immediate future won't have a main page. There will be an index with a warning, either a table or sidebar of recips, and 2-3 galleries, each linked-to from the index by a thumb and text link. But I assume that they won't be listed by many of the bigger link lists since they aren't a traditional free site. Of course, I can't ask who would be willing to accept them in this forum, because that's apparently somehow threatening to the traditionalists.

I'll list them, but please, easy on the sheep references

[DangerDave]

Originally Posted by Useless Warrior

I'm calling bullshit.

There's nothing new to the suggestions, yet there's an amazing amount of resistance to them. So what does that mean? Almost every statement Kit has made has been quoted and deliberately mis-interrupted so that the sheep will think he's a fool. No matter what anyone may think of Kit, he's no fool. I don't know how anyone reading this thread or Marc's thread couldn't see that much of this is a personal issue and nothing at all to do with business. Again, the suggestions don't deviate very far from the standard free site, but a thread created to ask which lists would accept them was treated as spam and moved.

The free sites that I want to build in the immediate future won't have a main page. There will be an index with a warning, either a table or sidebar of recips, and 2-3 galleries, each linked-to from the index by a thumb and text link. But I assume that they won't be listed by many of the bigger link lists since they aren't a traditional free site. Of course, I can't ask who would be willing to accept them in this forum, because that's apparently somehow threatening to the traditionalists.

I call double-bullshit

If anyone else had come up with the same ideas.. they would have been treated the same... There are two points(maybe three) I have made..

1. The 'design' does not differ from what can already be done. - therefore idea = useless

2. The 'idea' was proposed as a forgone conclusion... not as a proposal for discussion. That is real cart-before-the-horse stuff.. and not conducive to movement in a common direction..

3. Change for changes sake is waste of time/moneyresources.. eg: Category recips.. everyone(bar a few of us) dived into them with no discussion or thought for the consequences... and now everyone is diving out again because they served no fucking purpose at all..( and IMO did more damage than anything else in recent years.)


Useless you seem to want to tar "us" with a certain brush.. but do you say the same things about those that rush to defend Kits position so vehemently...



The short answer is...

the original idea was flawed,
the implementation was poor,
and it's only outcome is battle between 'the sides'...

Great..

DD

[stuveltje]

Originally Posted by borgivan

I imagine you sitting in front of your screen and chuckling with a demonic laugh at your own CLEVEREST post, thinkin it will shoot Kits head off and kill all his ideas and plans. Holy shit! I'm laughing, too !

mmm i am thinking how to understand your post (and yep i am not english or usa either), or you are being sarcastic here and you are definitly not an english person or you are an usa person and i realy need to take english lessons again ( oke i didnt say the lessons i had before did their work)...help me out here...still i think its probrably the first thing

[Linkster]

Ive just started reading this - but have something that kinda irritates me already - there has been a lot of talk about recips being required to be on the index/warning page and that is not accurate for a lot of lists - the terms I use in my rules is:

"If you link to us from the page we are linking to, do not put the link under your "enter" button.
The link back DOES NOT have to be on the 1st page, but if it is, it has to be above the enter link"

This was the reason that there is a separate "recip url" box on almost every link list software package out there - otherwise the software writers would have just left the submit form with one url.

Im not going to get into the SEO part of this conversation as a lot of bad assumptions are being made from the very start - and to try to correct someone elses interpretations of what their SE position problems are and how to fix it by using a change to something that isnt broken is not an ideal I adhere to - (i.e.) Im not gonna fuck my submitters just to try to fix something I broke

[Greenguy]

Originally Posted by Useless Warrior

...Again, the suggestions don't deviate very far from the standard free site, but a thread created to ask which lists would accept them was treated as spam and moved....

The thread was moved because I believe that Link Lists & Free Sites, as defined by most members of this board, contain warning pages. Kit's v1.5 has ELIMINATED the warning page:
"There is no reason to keep warning page if you add special meta tags to HTML code"

I can honestly say that if ANYONE posted what Kit did - PK, Richard, DDave, Murray, Cleo, Raw Alex, Emerald, Linkster, mb, etc - ANYONE - I would have reacted in the same manner, because I am a huge supported of the warning page concept as far as Free Sites & Link Lists go.

You keep thinking this is an anti-Kit thing - and I have admitted that part of my 1st reply was ego driven. And we all know there is this "Greenguy hates Russians" mentality on Master-X. None of that applies to the core of my argument against this - I like warning pages.

Originally Posted by Useless Warrior

...The free sites that I want to build in the immediate future won't have a main page. There will be an index with a warning, either a table or sidebar of recips, and 2-3 galleries, each linked-to from the index by a thumb and text link. But I assume that they won't be listed by many of the bigger link lists since they aren't a traditional free site. Of course, I can't ask who would be willing to accept them in this forum, because that's apparently somehow threatening to the traditionalists.

I can see where you're coming from, but I do honestly think that if you had started that thread, I'd have left it here because it does have the warning page involved (and please feel free to start it if you wish)

Hell, Bill's been building sites like that for YEARS - they do have a main page, but the galleries are clearly linked right off the warning page.

(and yes, I typed all that up before I read the rest of the DDave & UW posts, which is why it looks kinda redundant)

Originally Posted by LowryBigwood

Also, IMHO if you standardize sites in such a way that has been described, you may make them easy targets for the search engines. Why doesn't each LL decide what they want to list instead of everyone trying to conform to one set of rules? Back in the day, this may have worked out well...

Because we're learned that when one asshole (me) changes his rules, people build sites to fit them. Example: I change to 12 pics/page & Cleo stays at 10. Preacher build a Free Site & wants to submit to both, so he puts 12 pics/page. Cleo's listings are changed by default. The real way to do it to make everything appear "different" is via design & coding.

[Greenguy]

Let me sum all this up, because I think this is taking up way to much of everyone's time.

I did not read what Kit posted as something that was up for discussion. I read it that he & the people over at Master-X were going to change how Free Sites are laid out. The discussion about this had already taken place on the other board, as Kit posted a link to 200+ posts on the topic.

Yes, my ego tells me that anything to do with Link Lists & Free Sites should be discussed on this board & involve myself as well as many others. Call me what you want, but I think that 11+ years doing this & only knowing of about 5 other people doing what I do for longer (months longer than me, not years) entitles me to be involved in a discussion like this from the beginning & not 9 thread pages into it.

Based on those 2 things, hopefully people can see what I was so fucking angry. If not, then so be it - call me an asshole

The 2nd part of this is Kit's Free Site v2.0, which is basically this v1.5 with galleries added to it. This is a hub. It's a fake TGP. It's a list of your own galleries where you trade links with other people. This is not something new. This is an existing marketing method that this board, especially MrMaryLou & On The Bench, have preached for the last 5 years.

Now, had Kit come in here & stated that he wanted to list the hubs of webmasters that fit into a list of rules, no one would have complained a bit. In fact, people would have jumped for joy, because everyone building Free Sites probably has pages like v2.0 sitting on their servers.

***

Even though I think the presentation of v1.5 & v2.0 has sucked ass, I think everyone can admit that without it, this big open discussion would not have taken place (or at least pushed the discussion wide open)

I would ask that Useless get the ball rolling on Link Lists that will consider accepting Free Sites with a warning page that links to 2 or 3 gallery pages (no main page) Let's call them v1.75 Free Sites (or whatever the fuck you want to call them).

I'd also invite Kit to start a thread about trading links with hubs over in the Link & Traffic Trading forum.

[Useless]

Originally Posted by Greenie

Let's call them v1.75 Free Sites (or whatever the fuck you want to call them).

I was thinking v1.69. It has a more sexy ring to it.

[Greenguy]

<angry and typing>STOP MAKING FUN OF KIT AND HIS FREE SITE CONCEPT</angry and typing>

dib dib

[Cleo]

Bring back pic posts...