Link O'Rama Rule Changes (yipee)

[Greenguy]

This place is to fargin small.......

I've just put some BIG rule changes into place for the Link O'Rama & when I say BIG, I mean size

You can read all the rules over here, but in a nutshell:
24 pic minimum (12/gallery)
1200 pixels for the combined width & height of images
no pics on html pages
1024 for site width

Sites that are currently listed will be grandfathered in & these new rules will NEVER apply to them (so these no need to go back & change old sites or worry aobut them being removed)

I've got more changes in the works, including one that will make you want to put my in your suitcase & take me home - it's that much love

[ponygirl]

Originally Posted by Greenie

24 pic minimum (12/gallery)
1200 pixels for width & height of images

well...ya, I'd say that's a big change.

Originally Posted by Greenie

I will say this - some will say "it's about time" and others will say "why'd you change that?"
I love pissing people off while making them happy at the same time

I wonder what the pissed off:happy ratio is right now

going back to recut all my pics on the new freesite I'm building....

[docholly]

Originally Posted by Greenie

This place is to fargin small.......

I've just put some BIG rule changes into place for the Link O'Rama & when I say BIG, I mean size

You can read all the rules over here, but in a nutshell:
24 pic minimum (12/gallery)
1200 pixels for width & height of images
no pics on html pages
1024 for site width

WOW 1200 pixels..my ass shots might even fit now!!

May the bless you PonyGirl

[Torn Rose]

DICK!!!!








I just wanted to be the first to say that.... well, the first in this thread.

[Preacher]

I already stated the reasons for my opinion in the good morning thread so I'll just repost my stance: Bastard!

The only problem I see in building future sites that comply is...I like to keep my pictures as high quality as is generally allowed (basically right below the 100k mark) and using larger pics will force more compression and therefore lower quality. Not like I'm a photo-optimization specialist or anything, and not like it will stop me from submitting...makes me think though if the page size is being rethought, maybe it's time to rethink pic weight too.

Preacher
(Not a Pot-Stirrer)

[Preacher]

P.S.

Thanks for the grandfathering.

[Greenguy]

Preacher - what size pics are you currently using?

[WarBot]

1024 x 768 is a pretty common dimension for large images, thats about 700 on the long side after resize. Hell, about 1/2 of my content sets werent even 700 on the long side when I bought em. When alot of link lists wont allow images over 80kb youre looking at alot of white backgrounds or alot of over compressed images. OR alot of smaller link lists changing their 80kb rule (also bad news for the submitters trying to make some money at this).

I think this is a very bad idea. To me, more content + larger images = less sales. With 120 seconds minimum of videos, 24 pics 700 on the long side, that doesnt leave much to the imagination or much reason for the surfer to pull out the plastic. Lots of happy surfers and bookmarkers for you, less sales for the webmasters submitting sites to you. I thought the idea was to make money, not to get the surfer off?

Just my .5 cents. I really hope that noone else adopts these new rules. I think its setting a very bad precedence.

WB

[Greenguy]

Hold on! Read the rule page 1st - the 1200 for images is the combined width & height (Good: 700 + 525 = 1225 Bad: 640 + 480 = 1120)

I guess I should have made that a bit clearer in my post

[Greenguy]

WarBot - so 2 more pics per page is going to cause surfers to not sign up to a paysite? Bigger pics will do this too?

You looked at a 500x375 pic lately? It's fucking tiny!

I'm here to make everyone happy - submitters, surfers & myself. To me, this is not that big of a deal.

People have bitched for the last year that 800 was too small, so I increase that as well as some other things based on that & it's a bad idea?

[Preacher]

Originally Posted by Greenie

Preacher - what size pics are you currently using?

On the set I am going to have to recut: 449x675
[Crap I had an example linked here, but I think cd34's security is preventing me from hotlinking it - I can ICQ or Private message you the gallery pages if you'd like to see how that size looks]

The reason they are that specific size is because I batch processed them to 75% of their original width & height because when I tested the compression on a few of them at that reduction I couldn't see any difference from the originals so it was easiest for me to batch process both the width and the compression with like values. Honestly, it won't be that hard to recut them to comply.

[Fonz]

Nice updates. Away with those tiny 500px pics.
That width and height combined rule reminds me of an old gold site rule

So are we all going to copy these rules now like the copycats that we are?

[docholly]

Originally Posted by Preacher

P.S.

Thanks for the grandfathering.

AMEN!!

and the time extention:

*NOTE*
New Rules Posted August 15 2006 (effective August 21 2006)

[ponygirl]

I don't mind those rules...I like using 24 pics anyway, you can vary your gallery designs easier that way. The 1200 is going to hurt some people I think, if the subs I see are any indication, and I agree that some pic size rules may have to change if more LLs adopt this, but you can still get under 100kb pretty easily imo.

Originally Posted by Fonz

So are we all going to copy these rules now like the copycats that we are?

lol

[Preacher]

Originally Posted by docholly

*NOTE*
New Rules Posted August 15 2006 (effective August 21 2006)

|doh| Doh! Did not even see that. I guess I've got 2 free-sites to get submitted before Monday - hub or no hub!

[Greenguy]

Originally Posted by Preacher

On the set I am going to have to recut: 449x675...

You know, I was going to put it at 640x480 but the widescreen pics throw off my 4:3 ratio rule. Then I was going to have the rule say that the minimum width or height would have to be 500, but then I thought about all the sites I'd get submitted with pics that are 500x500

The 1200 total (yes Fonz - I stole it ) made the most sense in my head.

[WarBot]

Originally Posted by Greenie

WarBot - so 2 more pics per page is going to cause surfers to not sign up to a paysite? Bigger pics will do this too?

You looked at a 500x375 pic lately? It's fucking tiny!

I'm here to make everyone happy - submitters, surfers & myself. To me, this is not that big of a deal.

People have bitched for the last year that 800 was too small, so I increase that as well as some other things based on that & it's a bad idea?

I agree that 500x375 is tiny. And yes, its my <u>opinion</u> that more + higher quality free content = less sales. Most of my images are 640x480 or 680x510, both are too small for link-o-rama. Im no expert and its your site, Im just offering you my thoughts.

Cheers
WB

[Nenad]

Originally Posted by Greenie

1024 for site width

:clap: :clap:

[gomin]

I agree that 1024 is becoming a standard nowadays, but almost all ll's won't accept anything bigger than 800 for a time.
Will you still accept 800 for site width?

[stuveltje]

bad bad GG just teasing , nice new rules still means i hve to sett my screen on 1024, i will get blind again .........damn this bizz

[Greenguy]

Originally Posted by gomin

...Will you still accept 800 for site width?

Of course.

[stuveltje]

Originally Posted by Greenie

Of course.

ah stu can keep the screen on 800

[Itchy]

General Rules:
> - minimum of 20 pics (minimum of 10 pics/page) OR minimum 120 seconds of movies (minimum 10 sec/movie)

oops lol

[gomin]

Originally Posted by stuveltje

ah stu can keep the screen on 800

[Magix]

damn most of my pics are 640 X 480 so it fucked up so i must change a sponsor