I'm surprised a program owner would come here and openly bash bodsforthemods the way he did. Bods is well known by program owners, and speaks with almost all of them directly. He does business with most on a personal level daily. He's one of the most business oriented website owners there are. Of course he has out done himself once again by quickly negotiating with twistys instead of just dropping the galleries.

I'd also like to point out shap's misrepresentation of the term "fusker" in this thread. Fusker is a term in the webmaster community to be a site which uses an automated script to rip and host a hotlinked gallery. The galleries you posted from bodsforthemods. Do not hotlink any images. You used the term "fusker" improperly to accuse websites which are indeed not "fusker" galleries.
Top two definitions taken from urban dictionary:And lastly. Where as it may seem I simply hold a biased opinion (note me flying the bods site in my sig). I've worked with bods on countless projects and will continue to for some time. He's an upstanding webmaster with excellent business ethics. Which, after shap having talked with him this afternoon. I'm sure he can agree with.

Take it to the sources. Most of those guys rarely lurk this board. Tell them about it on IQ and cfus

OK. I have read the whole thread. Forgive me if I am not totally up to speed with all this. But, can someone please take a look at the blog in my sig link and let me know if this is the right way to do things?

Thanks.

OK, we've already established that the examples at the start of the thread were more in the babelog/fakeblog "TGP-in-blogger-clothes" line. I was gonna chime in on that but got beaten to it.

I make a fair bit of change promoting sponsor content on real blogs, ones that have at least two text posts for every picture/sales post. When I use sponsor content on my actual blogs, I put one-to-three pictures in a discrete blog post, usually accompanied by some sort of text commentary. There's always a text link in that same post to the tour or the sponsor-hosted gallery, or both. I feel those adjacent text links satisfy my obligations to the producers of the content, no matter who else I'm promoting elsewhere on my blogs.

The one thing I do that's contrary to a lot of sponsor rules is that the pictures I post are in a sort of "very large thumb" format, never exceeding 320 pixels in width and usually about 400-450 pixels tall. To make these, I have to crop and/or resize, and the crop usually defaces or removes the sponsor watermark. Fortunately, no sponsor has had a problem with that to date; when they contact me, it's usually some version of "we've never had anybody market our stuff like this, we're amazed at how well it works, can you promote us more, please?"

If I did hear from a sponsor who was unhappy with my cropping-and-resizing, I'd drop them from further promotion and remove all their stuff from my archives. It's not that I don't understand the desire for watermark branding, it's just that they don't provide watermarked content in the dimensions I need. I've got a formula that works, all my big sponsors love my sales, and I'm not gonna mess with success for anybody.

:thumbsup looks good to me

i agree, i think its content theft.

im behind you wholeheartedly shap, youve made a long of strong points in this thread.

Hi Bods. I'll be sending you an email this evening :winkwink:

i'd just like to add that Rev is an assbag. that is all...:upsidedow

I second Potter's post. Bods is and has always been one of the finest webmasters out there with some of the best traffic. Aside from his amazing traffic, he is also a very reasonable guy and I am glad to see that he has decided to compromise with Twisty's to make things right.

I can see your points Shap, and that it isn't right for a webmaster to use a program's content to upsell others excessively. As you stated before, an amended TOS will definitly help to get rid of traffic that you do not desire. :thumbsup

Hey now... Leave me outta this!!

Your site is what a blog is supposed to be.. :thumbsup however it is giving some sort of design error.. the posts are way down at the bottom in IE.

I consider all sponsor content to be a SALES TOOL giving out content without proper promotion of the source is just fucking everyone up.

i almost bought that babedot script in ur sig

I would agree with you that many of the examples you showed the affiliate is misusing your content.

Those dont look like the blogs I usually see and most blogs I see the content is NOT organized in a way where the sponsors content can be used to promote other programs.

How do I sold porn!

I want attention too! Pick me PICK ME!

I had a nice big spew written, and they I deleted it for this:

http://www.bodsforthemods.com/galler...Playground-15/

There is no way that in any common sense that this page could be considered acceptable by the sponsor. The promotion for the site itself is very small, only 2 banners with limited text. However, there are 51 other links off that page. It isn't even logical.

What annoys me the most is every time "scammy" sites get exposed on the board, the same few sponsors appear on the page. It is really weird how this keeps on happening.

ADVICE TO PROGRAMS: In your free content policy, you should add this:

"You may not display more than 1 full image at a time. You may display up to 30 thumbs on any single page, provided these thumbs link to individual images. You may not place multiple full sized images on a single page.

On any html page where our full images appear, links to our program must be the only paying links on the page. On pages that contain our thumbnails as a gallery, our program can be the only paying link off the page.

Individual thumbs or reduced sized images can be used freely on blogs, information sites, or review sites provided that they link to our program, galleries that contain our content, or to promotional pages that promote our program. "

Alex

Tell me you didn't just diss the babeloggers and kiss bods ass at the same time.

Sounds good man - glad we could work it out!:thumbsup

if they argue with you cancel their account - take their money and tell them to remove all images.

you own the rights to the images - they don't - you make the rules in how they are used to advertise your stuff.

:2 cents:

I think he did ;)

You can buy quality text links and banner spots on http://www.thumbzilla.com right now. Hit us up!!

http://www.gallerytrafficservice.com/thumbzilla.htm

Thanks,
DH

Example 4: Pure rip of content no links to the source
http://www.allthepink.com/album.php?id=224

... that's the only one in that post I agree is abusing...

While I do agree that you have every right to require anything out of anyone using your content, I do believe you conducted yourself here in a very unprofessional manner.

Sites like bodsforthemods, badgirlsblog and glam0ur make up a large portion of your traffic and sale. And to call them out in public like theyre scam artists looking to cheat you, rather than emailing them and talking to them on an individual basis is bad business.

You have every right to be upset and I'm not going to argue against you on that, however, these are some of your biggest accounts and you're treating them like they don't help you pay your bills. That's biting the hand that feeds you.

You shouldnt have made a drama thread on GFY to handle this situation, each one of these webmasters is reachable by email and ICQ. You have their information and you should have used it.

How would you feel if babebloggers started posting 1 in 2227 twistys stats all over the place without trying to work something out with you or your staff first? This type of action is something that should be avoided, especially by someone that has so many people invested in them that they should really start taking the higher road more often.

Flu, I think it is an issue for public consumption because (a) many sponsors content is being used in a similar manner, and (b) morons are ripping off the concept and fucking it up even more.

http://www.allthepink.com/foto.php?p...3/&name=01.jpg

Do you really think this is a valid use of sponsor content?

Alex

shaps, while you're here, when do you payout the $150 for Webmaster Referral? Just how many sales does it take for them to be "Active" ?

Thanks!

That's for the sponsor to decide. But I don't think the place for decisions should be made in a drama thread on GFY. If sponsors want to set rules, then set rules, its your content. But to drag the name of babeblogs through the mud, when theyre not breaking any existing rules (at this time), is ridiculous.

Ahh, so let's not discuss anything in public. Many, GFY is going to be a boring series of "would you hit it" threads for sure now.

Alex

Maybe you don't realize this, but a lot of people do this for a living and it should be somewhat of a professional enviroment, especially if youre going to be calling people scammers. And maybe you don't realize this either, but some babeblogs do upwards of over $20k-40k a month in conversions to sponsors.

From what I understand, theres no existing rule set that these blogs have broken. So why try and tarnish their reputation?

I believe that Shap was entirely correct to use this forum to ask the question he did - he didnt start a drama thread - simpy asked a business question that is a valid question.

I do have one additional question for you Shap - how do you feel about your content being used for skimming purposes on TGPs? I know that recently a few paysite owners have added rules disallowing this practice as their feeling is that if a thumb of their content is shown, the surfer clicking the thumb ought to get their gallery/pic - not thrown off to another site for a trade.

Flu, take this example from Nasty Dollars:

Now, do you really think that any ND content could appear on that site without it being in violation? Think about it, I found a 25:1 ratio of links off that didn't go to the sponsor on the "gallery" pages.

I agree it isn't for us to say "yes or no" here and now, but it is an issue facing the programs that provide promotional content, and is something that should be talked about. I didn't see this thread as drama at all, but rather a pretty open discussion about a new-ish issue.

Alex

Well... apparently you dont own one of the honest sites that got called out in this thread.

Flu, do you consider galleries with 3 X 4 adbrite ads on it acceptable use of content? Perhaps 15 cam girl pictures? Maybe some combination thereof?

http://www.dailywenches.com/ariel-re...room-pictures/

I am curious... explain how you think this is an acceptable use of the content... I would love to hear it :)

Alex

That's neither your place or my place to say. Quit trying to put words in my mouth and stop trying to change the subject of my concern. I can understand if you're backing an anti-babeblog sentiment, I could careless if you have zero foresight and don't understand that fact that these sites, unlike TGPs, are built to provide traffic and conversions to sponsors, but I'm not here to argue with you.

So, stop trying to troll me into a reply, I have no opinion on how these guys are advertising for sponsors, its not my concern.

This thread will do nothing to the honest sites. What 99% of the people posting in this thread don't realise is program owners know and conduct business with the honest sites daily. There is a reason you havn't seen any of the major single girl and teen sponsors posting in this thread. They are on a first name basis with the honest sites listed in this thread. The people that matter are the ones not posting in this thread. As the real business is done outside of GFY on a personal level. Much like what has taken place with Twistys behind the scenes (which none of you will ever know about).

What potter said...

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showpo...&postcount=115

http://dailyhotties.net/ariel_rebel/ <<adbrite ads/dating gold/adengage and links to 20 other babelogs and ariel rebel is converting 1:226. I think thats fair as the links to panchodog are displayed IMO very prominantly above the fold.

Restricting affiliates usage of content is beneficial to the program owner and those that actually want to make money. People are going to goto a babelog and get 139879835 images instead of my blog to get 3 or 4.

Shap not to be rude but whats the big deal? I can see u named bods which is one of the biggest porn blogs on the net today. Everyone has a right to make their galleries anyway they like. Rules from paysite companies state, you need at least a banner or link with the pictures or videos of the company you promote doesnt it? If you look around more, you will see that is pretty much how every blog promotes. Content pics and a link and or a banner at the bottom. These blogs are making u money and ur arguing because they are using ur content with ONLY 1 banner? Does not make sense at all. U still see sales from it right? Blogs are in my opinion different then tgps in that way. No fhgs are allowed unless the owners put there own up. To be honest most just make their own galleries and plug them for surfers to see and sign up with. Im just really confused on your complaint.

I'm surprised this is even a question. I remember when the T&C of every program had a pretty clear rule that when using free content you were not allowed to have links to ANY other sponsor on the same page. Some sponsors may be willing to look the other way, but that rule has always been in place.