TGP WEBMASTERS -- anyone interested in forming a gallery reviewing co-op? - Page 3 - GoFuckYourself.com

LiveDose · 03-27-2003, 09:08 PM

101.

damn! you win...

heavenlyhardcore · 03-27-2003, 09:11 PM

Just a thought, a co-op is typically not limited in size. You could make this thing huge though. Get your core group together. These are the people that would be making the decisions, promoting the co-op and getting the resources in order. Once those positions are filled, offer access to the hand reviewed high quality galleries for a small fee every month. You could use this money to expand the co-op, increase traffic, and even offer a small dividend to the co-op members.

I might be way off base here with your original intentions, but this definitely has the potential to go a long way. The only thing you'll have to work out right away is the business structure and who has control of the cash.

You can contact me on ICQ if you would like to discuss this further: 112898417 (I'm rarely on, unless I know someone needs to talk to me. If I don't respond, you can always send me a private message through the admin panel of GFY).

Groove · 03-27-2003, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by heavenlyhardcore
Just a thought, a co-op is typically not limited in size. You could make this thing huge though. Get your core group together. These are the people that would be making the decisions, promoting the co-op and getting the resources in order. Once those positions are filled, offer access to the hand reviewed high quality galleries for a small fee every month. You could use this money to expand the co-op, increase traffic, and even offer a small dividend to the co-op members.

I might be way off base here with your original intentions, but this definitely has the potential to go a long way. The only thing you'll have to work out right away is the business structure and who has control of the cash.

You can contact me on ICQ if you would like to discuss this further: 112898417 (I'm rarely on, unless I know someone needs to talk to me. If I don't respond, you can always send me a private message through the admin panel of GFY).

Funny you should say that

I'm currently looking at an alternative model which would offer a no-frills service for free and a premium service for a monthly fee. I'll release details once I've had a chance to discuss the technical aspects with the programmer.

The reviewers and other volunteers will have access to the premium service for free and they'll also be permitted to submit one gallery per day provide that it meets our standards (note reviewers can't submit to a category that they review).

Anyone who wants to be a reviewer please contact me ASAP!

Snake Doctor · 03-27-2003, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Groove

It's not the quality of sponsor content that concerns me. My concern is that free content inevitably becomes stale more rapidly than paid content. Plus many (most?) TGPs like to mix-in some sponsor galleries bearing their own affiliate code and I doubt that they'd appreciate us providing content they were intending to submit themselves!

And even if we were going to allow free sponsor content, why on earth would we let submitters post it when we could post it ourselves and make some money?

Yes but as I pointed out in my earlier post, there is a lot of high quality sponsor content that isn't overexposed.

In regards to posting sponsor hosted galleries or free content yourself, that's fine. But there's no way on earth you have an account with and have built galleries for every sponsor out there that has free content. So to reject all galleries that are using sponsor provided content is going a bit too far IMO.
It should be at the reviewers discretion, you just have to have good reviewers.

Another example would be this. A paysite owner I know builds and submits his own galleries with his own exclusive content that isn't made available to anyone else. But he uses a different domain for his galleries because the paysite is on an expensive multi homed host and the galleries are on cogent bandwidth.
He uses ccbill referral links on the galleries so he can keep track of how many sales the galleries generate as opposed to other forms of traffic.
To a reviewer, this looks like a reseller using sponsor content, so you would reject this gallery. But its a paysite owner trying to make a buck and giving you high quality exclusive content for your bookmarker's to whack it to.

I know the whole purpose of this thing is to make the TGP owner's life easier and to create some sort of global blacklist to help cut down on the cheating, but if you don't give gallery builders a fair chance to make a buck you're not going to get the submits you need to make this work.

My

Snake Doctor · 03-27-2003, 09:58 PM

Oh and in regards to a reviewer listing a gallery with the same content that the paysite owner was planning to use that day.

A) that could happen with paid content as well. Especially the inexpensive stuff.

B) almost all TGP owners that use hosted galleries list them above the submitted stuff anyways, so it still wouldn't hurt their chance at making a sale.

Groove · 03-28-2003, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lenny2

Yes but as I pointed out in my earlier post, there is a lot of high quality sponsor content that isn't overexposed.

In regards to posting sponsor hosted galleries or free content yourself, that's fine. But there's no way on earth you have an account with and have built galleries for every sponsor out there that has free content. So to reject all galleries that are using sponsor provided content is going a bit too far IMO.
It should be at the reviewers discretion, you just have to have good reviewers.

Another example would be this. A paysite owner I know builds and submits his own galleries with his own exclusive content that isn't made available to anyone else. But he uses a different domain for his galleries because the paysite is on an expensive multi homed host and the galleries are on cogent bandwidth.
He uses ccbill referral links on the galleries so he can keep track of how many sales the galleries generate as opposed to other forms of traffic.
To a reviewer, this looks like a reseller using sponsor content, so you would reject this gallery. But its a paysite owner trying to make a buck and giving you high quality exclusive content for your bookmarker's to whack it to.

I know the whole purpose of this thing is to make the TGP owner's life easier and to create some sort of global blacklist to help cut down on the cheating, but if you don't give gallery builders a fair chance to make a buck you're not going to get the submits you need to make this work.

My

You make some good points

But I'm still not convinced...

For every 1 sponsor gallery that's OK (ie. good quality and not over exposed) there will be 500 others that aren't. It's a bit like saying don't ban auto-submits because there are some good galleries submitted via auto-submits. Of course that's true, but you ban them because the vast majority are useless.

My other major concern is that I don't think that TGPs will be happy paying for the privilege of us feeding them sponsor galleries. I suppose I might consider using them as filler galleries when there's nothing else available, but then they'd be galleries with my sponsor code, not the submitter's.

As for an owner submitting exclusive content I'd have no problem with that. In fact if the galleries are any good, I think he'd be a prime candidate for a preferred poster account.

Anyway that's just my opinion. Nothing is set in stone at this stage. Ultimately the rules will be determined by a formula which strives to satisfy the needs of the widest possible range of TGPs without being unduly restrictive on the posters.

Groove · 03-28-2003, 06:49 PM

Does anyone else have any opinions about the merits or folly of accepting sponsor content?

Snake Doctor · 03-28-2003, 09:39 PM

Well Groove you know my opinion. I made my case and bottom line I think you just need good reviewers who know what's been over exposed and what's new and fresh. They need to have an eye for quality.

The surfer doesn't care who bought or sold the pics, its all about quality. By banning sponsor content outright you would

List pixmasters but decline Karups.

List rock bottom content but decline ATK.

List zip content but decline Socal Coeds.

And as far as I know, the 3 sponsors I listed above don't offer hosted galleries, so its not like you could cut and paste some code and make money yourself.

Groove · 03-29-2003, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lenny2
Well Groove you know my opinion. I made my case and bottom line I think you just need good reviewers who know what's been over exposed and what's new and fresh. They need to have an eye for quality.

The surfer doesn't care who bought or sold the pics, its all about quality. By banning sponsor content outright you would

Most of your arguments are valid, but they ignore the fact that I also have to consider the wishes of the TGP owners and the efficiency of the reviewing process.

Quote:

List pixmasters but decline Karups.

List rock bottom content but decline ATK.

List zip content but decline Socal Coeds.

And as far as I know, the 3 sponsors I listed above don't offer hosted galleries, so its not like you could cut and paste some code and make money yourself.

And what's to stop me from building my own galleries?

Snake Doctor · 03-29-2003, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Groove

And what's to stop me from building my own galleries?

Nothing at all. Hell, you could just scrap this whole idea and list nothing but sponsor galleries and your own shit. Seems to be the fucking trend these days anyways

Content Girl · 04-28-2003, 02:54 PM

Just got back from vacation. Anything new on this Groove??

Krystal

nemesis · 06-13-2003, 01:03 PM

what happened to this project?

Steve · 06-13-2003, 01:41 PM

if you want a job done right, you do it yourself

03-27-2003, 09:08 PM	#101
Lane Will code for food... Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Buckeye, AZ Posts: 8,496	100 __________________

03-27-2003, 09:08 PM	#102
LiveDose Show Yer Tits! Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Somewhere Out there... Posts: 25,792	101. damn! you win... __________________ Scammer Alert: acer19 acer [email protected] [email protected] Money stolen using PayPal

03-27-2003, 09:11 PM	#103
heavenlyhardcore Registered User Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Heaven, but on vacation Posts: 49	Just a thought, a co-op is typically not limited in size. You could make this thing huge though. Get your core group together. These are the people that would be making the decisions, promoting the co-op and getting the resources in order. Once those positions are filled, offer access to the hand reviewed high quality galleries for a small fee every month. You could use this money to expand the co-op, increase traffic, and even offer a small dividend to the co-op members. I might be way off base here with your original intentions, but this definitely has the potential to go a long way. The only thing you'll have to work out right away is the business structure and who has control of the cash. You can contact me on ICQ if you would like to discuss this further: 112898417 (I'm rarely on, unless I know someone needs to talk to me. If I don't respond, you can always send me a private message through the admin panel of GFY). __________________ Heavenly Hardcore Webmaster Affiliate Program : Earn 40% On Initial And Recurring Sales Heavenly Hardcore Webmaster Resources : Tools And Services To Help You Succeed

03-27-2003, 09:58 PM	#106
Snake Doctor I'm Lenny2 Bitch Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: On top of my soapbox Posts: 13,449	Oh and in regards to a reviewer listing a gallery with the same content that the paysite owner was planning to use that day. A) that could happen with paid content as well. Especially the inexpensive stuff. B) almost all TGP owners that use hosted galleries list them above the submitted stuff anyways, so it still wouldn't hurt their chance at making a sale. __________________ sig too big

03-28-2003, 09:39 PM	#109
Snake Doctor I'm Lenny2 Bitch Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: On top of my soapbox Posts: 13,449	Well Groove you know my opinion. I made my case and bottom line I think you just need good reviewers who know what's been over exposed and what's new and fresh. They need to have an eye for quality. The surfer doesn't care who bought or sold the pics, its all about quality. By banning sponsor content outright you would List pixmasters but decline Karups. List rock bottom content but decline ATK. List zip content but decline Socal Coeds. And as far as I know, the 3 sponsors I listed above don't offer hosted galleries, so its not like you could cut and paste some code and make money yourself. __________________ sig too big

03-28-2003, 06:49 PM	#108
Groove Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 3,852	Does anyone else have any opinions about the merits or folly of accepting sponsor content?

04-28-2003, 02:54 PM	#112
Content Girl Registered User Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 67	Just got back from vacation. Anything new on this Groove?? Krystal

06-13-2003, 01:03 PM	#113
nemesis Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: home Posts: 1,335	what happened to this project?

06-13-2003, 01:41 PM	#114
Steve Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: USA Posts: 6,894	if you want a job done right, you do it yourself