using fake download dialogue layers

[donger]

hey all

what ever happened to the desire for clean sites? A lot of sites are now doing this thing with a bogus IE download dialogue on one of their main pages. This pretty much completely screws up productivity and lessens the quality of trades as a whole. A few months ago, we were all pushing to clean up our sites in general and try to raise the quality of trades as a whole. What ever happened to that? I can pretty much say without a shadow of a doubt that these fake download layers dramatically reduce productivity from the sites that are using them. I tried using one back in october, then pulled it after noticing that productivity coming off the site had dropped by about 30% in three hours :P

In mid december, we completely redid pornrodeo and seriously cleaned it up. At the time, productivity shot up by 40% and our traffic rose accordingly. Now i just looked at the site, and pretty much anybody generating less than a 1:1 unique/clickout ratio has one of these layers on their sites. The problem with this is, once one person starts using one, he starts screwing the sites he trades with so badly that they need to add them to their sites to raise the productivity of the now lousy traffic that's flowing in. I think we should all stop using these download dialogue layers altogether; IMHO it will actually increase rather than decrease the amount of traffic flowing through all of our sites. Think about it: if somebody clicks a dialogue expecting just to dismiss it, they aren't going to pay too much attention to the 5 windows that pop up; they're going to be trying to close them as fast as possible, and probably close your site in the process. If they click a link that says "anal sex thumbnail gallery" or something like that, then end up at your site, they're going to examine your site looking for that gallery and probably click something in the process.

Anyways, most of my sites have completely tanked in the last two months, and i'm making this plea to everybody to clean up our sites and get things cooking like they used to be.

laters
donger

[Rimmer]

I've noticed the same thing regarding productivity.

My opinion on the situation is anything that opens a trade where a surfer doesn't expect a new window (or several) to open is bad for productivity. As a surfer if you're trying to close a window of some kind the last thing you're going to what to do is visit another site. You'll just close the trades imediately and try again to close that damned fake window.

I personally refuse to use any bullshit like that on my sites as I know how bad they are for the CJ business.

[richard]

There is a distinction between these images surely.

For example, i agree that a download box is a shitty idea, you are expecting a file if you click OK, or the window to shut if you click cancel. Ditto error msg and fake browser crashes.

BUT...

if a msgbox type layer pops up, saying "click OK to visit a porn site" you gotta accept that that is a surfer looking for porn on the page that it takes you to.

As i understand it, a window.open() code does not carry an http_referer variable (i could be wrong, just what someone told me..) So by using an img of a dialog box, with an <img> and an <a> tag, you are getting the click counted.

IMHO these types of pictures should be ok to use - but within reason. P4ALL used one (just an eg guys) where there was a picture covering the head of a guys cock - inviting the surfer to move the 'window' blocking his view. Click.

Thats not good.
==========================================

Seriously though, CJ is bullshit.

Asking to improve the quality of traffic, is like raising it from being very very crap, to very crap.

In the end of a day, a picture of an alert box saying DOWNLOAD XXX HERE or something, is the same as a thumb saying CLICK TO ENLARGE - both ways the surfer does not get what he wants.

===============

Thinking about it, CJ is a big con on the advertisers.

Looking at it this way - if one person owned all of the CJ sites, and all of the traffic, he double sells it to advertisers because they are coming from different sites - quite bizare really.

But its not people like Brian/Steve/Jack/Goof that are being short changed, its the naive paysites.

BUT - Ah HA! The same thing happens with TV advertising etc. Called branding the name yea?

So they arent getting ripped off if they understand that they are not buying 2 million impressions buy different people each time... i dunno.

*sigh*

http://adultwebmasterinfo.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif

I dont think there is a person out there that likes making money from porn, or who likes eating the web's bandwidth, or who enjoys the blind click game.

But if it makes money as easy as it does, i dont really give a shit.

With no dis-respect, if internet porn is your life, you are some sad bastard.
=================

Kinda deviated, oops.

Thats what happens when you come home pissed i guess.

-------------------

Anyone else noticed how its kinda gone a bit downhill lately?
http://www.CycleJerk.com/images/banner.gif

lators.

Rich.

[MrBrian]

rich-
basically you are saying screw people for as much as you can for short term? i had to imply some rules
to keep traffic quality up before, i might have to that again.

and just a note, steve and goof have asked me to buy traffic for a reason and i have had to say no
because traffic quality is just shitty for a lot of you guys of late. nicce cleaned up his act, i would advise
chris/rich and his following do the same.

i would suggest trying to do things long term and you will be successful. i have been doing this since
march '96 and i have seen too many people trying to make a quick buck lost forever. they latest being
axxes.

everyone is skating on a very thin line. look at sypro/ibill/dmr/epoch/wts. i heard ccbill is next. if you
dont know what im talking about wake the hell up! lol


peace~brian http://adultwebmasterinfo.com/ubb/cool.gif

ps. im not going to argue after this. just stating the facts. nothing personal against anyone just giving you guys advice.

pps. rich you forgot to link your logo to cyclejerk

[Rimmer]

Richard says

'If a msgbox type layer pops up, saying "click OK to visit a porn site" '

You're correct in saying that the productivity of that isn't bad. I totally agree with that. Its more the fake windows where you try to move them and suddenly get transported to new sites. Or a javascript error message which refreshes to the front when the person is about to signup at a sponsor. Or a fake play button on a video.

If the surfer expects to go to a new page when clicking on a link then the link is good and will produce high productivity. If they don't then the link is a poor productivity trick.

I know if I pulled all the tricks out in the book I could get my site returning at 300%. But the truth of the matter is surfers don't suddenly split into 3. What is happening is I'm giving each person I trade with 1/3 of a surfer. i.e. the person gets tricked by fake links twice before clicking on a real link where they actually go to the site. So 2 of those trades were a waste of time where we just waste our own bandwidth. The surfer didn't see our adds or even allow the exit console we're selling to load.

The only way to return greater than 100% for real to everyone you trade with is to use feed traffic. I use my Freehost / TGP to feed to my CJ site.

[Due]

I totally agree that download layers SUX bigtime. Even more if you have a long time out before the layer show up. Because then most surfers would have clicked something and then they are brought back to the site again and there is a 80% chance they click it (the last 80% is the netscape users and a layer don't show up in netscape)
This I say even though I have a download layer on my site :-(
It will be gone from my site in a few days (mayby even today) I just need to make something new first!
It seems like there is a need for clean-list.com again...
If anyone has the time to run clean-list.com (mayby make some extra $$ from advertisers on the site)
Contact me on ICQ
BTW... About the fresh traffic. I think I'm doing my part. The last few hours I have had 1828 clicks going to my out script comming from another CJ site and a total of 2775 clicks to my out script
/Due
ICQ ~ 7694991

[richard]

I know what you are saying Brian, i wasnt trying to makea personal point, just a CJ observation - Its SHIT.

More on a personal note, i was well up for setting up a super clean CJ set up, but it just didnt get the feedback needed.

One point i did make in that thread was the people with the most influences are the exit buyers - you say jump, the webmaster says how high.
-------------------------------------------

Traffic quality blows. Period.

There are too many people with CJ sites to get everyone to clean up their act.

To be blunt, you are semi right, i dont see myself doing the same CJ sites in 20 years time - so if thats what you mean, hell yea i am in it for the short term buck.

Tim: we agree (i think) "No links where the surfer doesnt expect to go to a new page" sounds good to me.

But how far do you go? if a surfer clicks a thumb expecting a fullsize pic and gets a new site, he knows he has been screwed by the last site...

i dont know - it could be argued all the way until we end up with... no CJ at all - just real links.

rich

[Rimmer]

At least with a thumb link there is no surpise that a new page is opening.

They might not get what they want to see but at least they'll have a look at it first. And most CJ sites promise even more than they initially expected.

With surpise window openings the surfer knows they've been tricked even before window has opened and will start their closing frenzy sooner.

[richard]

yep.

i agree.

Well then - who can lay down the law?

Big sites? Lots of small sites? sponsors?

http://adultwebmasterinfo.com/ubb/confused.gif

Rich.

[nicce2]

HI, i have been yelled at by webmasters complaining about my productivity, this low productivity was caused by deceptive layers..
like the download/windows error message..
(i have even seen a javascript error layer:-( )
I like the layer idea..so i changed mine into something a visitor would click on expecting a image/gallery, and i must say it have improved my sites productivity:-)

fx. the old download layer..was changed to this http://www.crispyteens.com/download2.gif

Im sure layers are ok, as long as they are made by using some imagination.

i hope you can see the improve in my traffic quallity.

For new trades: http://www.crispyteens.com/cgi-bin/ucj/ucjadmin.cgi
http://www.freeanaltens.com/cgi-bin/ucj/ucjadmin.cgi

[nicce2]

sorry wrong trade signup links:-(

this is the correct ones:
http://www.crispyteens.com/cgi-bin/ucj/webmaster.cgi
http://www.freeanalteens.com/cgi-bin/ucj/webmaster.cgi

[mutley]

nicce2, what happens when the surfer tries to close the layer "windows"?
yup, another site popups...
that ain't going to help productivity...

[Due]

I agree that the use of layers got out of hand. I think the main problem was that it was either download file / crash layers that where used.
If you use a layer that gets the user to think they are comming to a secret area / members area etc. etc. it will not destroy the productivity because then the surfer will start looking for thouse secret XXX banned on the entire earth pictures.
It will ruin the productivity if you have a high timeout on your layers if you use some ()focus commands because it will do so even though the visitors have clicked something and is on another page your page will be loaded in front.
I think it is okay to use layers if:
1: there is a low timeout or no focus command
2: it don't look like something crashed or you are about to download 500000 pictures or something like that

[nicce2]

To Mutley:
If thats the problem u can just use a imagemap..and have the close()button goto a popup with textlinks, and then the user can click if he feels like it or just close it!
this way the layer won´t send any "bad" hits to the script.

nicce