TGP2 or CJ3 ?..... You be the judge. - GoFuckYourself.com

Logan · 08-03-2001, 01:07 AM

Much talk of the TGP2 but will it fly? Im sorry.. dont mean to burst anyones bubble... and I think its great that people are brainstorming for new and innovative ideas but... I think not. I mean... TPG is "Thumbnail Gallery Post", (thumbnails linked to pictures/movies). TGP traffic is big for one reason, and that is "FREE PICTURES/MOVIES". How are you going to ge traffic to TGP2? Force it? I dont know about you but I dont see how you expect to have better conversion ratios when the surfers were forced to get to the CJ3/TGP2 by blind linking anyhow... I guess this will finally separate the good TGP's from the bad ones. Where is the quality traffic at anyhow? Its at Thehun.net, who probably feels the same way as I do about this, Right Hun?

Who knows... Maybe we are going backwards now... It went from Toplists to CJ to TGP and now back to CJ? with a TGP Twist? Hmm.... I dont think so!

The Hun · 08-03-2001, 03:55 AM

I'd vote for CJ3 indeed. And I must admit that if it's a CJ3 then it's a good step in the good direction. More focusing on being very tempting to people instead of entrapping 'em. I think that's honest to surfers. Blind linking thumbs isn't BTW, but I saw previews of paysites with this layout years back. Smart from a marketing point of view, and honest to the surfer. Maybe a whole new name would be better. Seems it's too far off both a CJ and a TGP...

ezekiel · 08-03-2001, 05:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Logan:
[B]Where is the quality traffic at anyhow? Its at Thehun.net, who probably feels the same way as I do about this, Right Hun?
B]

Search engines?

DamageX · 08-03-2001, 05:29 AM

The concept is not really CJ, since none of us is really prepared to either do the pop-up hell thing or send blind clicks to trades. Also, most of us don't have blind links on our sites, personally I hardly have any mouseovers (some for REALLY annoyingly long sponsorlinks). I am not prepared to trade traffic through blind links an neither are most of the others. I have no pop-ups whatsoever on my site and I can't remember seeing one on the other newly-emerged TGP2 sites.

So why would you call it CJ? It's TGP, only with fewer thumbs linking to larger pics. Some would allow large pics on HTML pages, some wouldn't, that's up to each site owner, just as with normal TGP's.

I'm sure we can get this thing rolling even without the big guys joining in. And there's nothing that says that TGP and TGP2 can not co-exist. The Hun has always had a strong point arguing that the surfers pay our bills and should be treated with respect. I agree 100%. BUT, this does not mean that they should leech off our bandwidth, leaving us with bills the size of the Grand Canyon. While some people can afford having shitloads of surfers freeloading, most can't. Thus TGP2, aiming at teasing the surfer, getting him horny but not getting off. Just hot enough in order to pull out the CC. Plus slash the bandwidth costs.

------------------
Respect,
DamageX

[This message has been edited by DamageX (edited 08-03-2001).]

08-03-2001, 01:07 AM	#1
Logan Registered User Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Newport Beach, CA Posts: 9	TGP2 or CJ3 ?..... You be the judge. Much talk of the TGP2 but will it fly? Im sorry.. dont mean to burst anyones bubble... and I think its great that people are brainstorming for new and innovative ideas but... I think not. I mean... TPG is "Thumbnail Gallery Post", (thumbnails linked to pictures/movies). TGP traffic is big for one reason, and that is "FREE PICTURES/MOVIES". How are you going to ge traffic to TGP2? Force it? I dont know about you but I dont see how you expect to have better conversion ratios when the surfers were forced to get to the CJ3/TGP2 by blind linking anyhow... I guess this will finally separate the good TGP's from the bad ones. Where is the quality traffic at anyhow? Its at Thehun.net, who probably feels the same way as I do about this, Right Hun? Who knows... Maybe we are going backwards now... It went from Toplists to CJ to TGP and now back to CJ? with a TGP Twist? Hmm.... I dont think so!

08-03-2001, 03:55 AM	#2
The Hun Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 1,207	I'd vote for CJ3 indeed. And I must admit that if it's a CJ3 then it's a good step in the good direction. More focusing on being very tempting to people instead of entrapping 'em. I think that's honest to surfers. Blind linking thumbs isn't BTW, but I saw previews of paysites with this layout years back. Smart from a marketing point of view, and honest to the surfer. Maybe a whole new name would be better. Seems it's too far off both a CJ and a TGP...

08-03-2001, 05:29 AM	#4
DamageX Marketing & Strategy Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Former nomad Posts: 14,293	The concept is not really CJ, since none of us is really prepared to either do the pop-up hell thing or send blind clicks to trades. Also, most of us don't have blind links on our sites, personally I hardly have any mouseovers (some for REALLY annoyingly long sponsorlinks). I am not prepared to trade traffic through blind links an neither are most of the others. I have no pop-ups whatsoever on my site and I can't remember seeing one on the other newly-emerged TGP2 sites. So why would you call it CJ? It's TGP, only with fewer thumbs linking to larger pics. Some would allow large pics on HTML pages, some wouldn't, that's up to each site owner, just as with normal TGP's. I'm sure we can get this thing rolling even without the big guys joining in. And there's nothing that says that TGP and TGP2 can not co-exist. The Hun has always had a strong point arguing that the surfers pay our bills and should be treated with respect. I agree 100%. BUT, this does not mean that they should leech off our bandwidth, leaving us with bills the size of the Grand Canyon. While some people can afford having shitloads of surfers freeloading, most can't. Thus TGP2, aiming at teasing the surfer, getting him horny but not getting off. Just hot enough in order to pull out the CC. Plus slash the bandwidth costs. ------------------ Respect, DamageX [This message has been edited by DamageX (edited 08-03-2001).]