Tube Sites

Thinking...

oh lord another tube thread

I would image they get backlinks naturally from people just linking to them. They don't even have to trade or buy links.

+1.
Horny guy 1: Where can I find good streaming porn for free?
Horny guy 2 with know how: Just go to [put tubeurl here].

Free stuff gets traffic.

The little that you know about them is completely wrong.

Tubes are great

Allowing surfers to Embed those videos on external sites help them. That's the reason it's such a prominant feature. If you allow and promote embedding with MGP's or just as a promotion tool the same thing should happen. Am I way off here?

My wife likes my tube.

Tubes rule!!

...at least the surfer in me thinks so.

this is where google should be doing some of their infamous hand tweaking of the algorithm, because their methodology makes it so that the sites that thieve and give away the most for free are obviously going to be huge link bait and will therefore outrank the honest sites all the time

what you know seems to be biased to large illegal tube sites. there are 1000's of 1000's of legal tube sites running. And the statements you've made are completely irrelevant to them.

the content from my sites is ONLY and will ONLY be from sponsors. many of them offer a feed and give out FLV files to use. i honestly make a number of sales from my tube site each month and have no doubt I will continue to do so.

googles ranking is for the surfer, not the sites who want to earn money from the FREE traffic. give the surfers what they want and you get a better ranking.

Want to make money buy the traffic using adwords.

You are correct, I was referring more to "illegal" tubes, meaning the ones that steal their content, in part of my post.

You are absolutely correct. Google is not at all concerned with whether a website makes money, Google just wants to deliver the most relevant results to its surfers. That said, Google also does not want to be "tricked" by black hat SEO tactics and have webmasters artificially inflate their rankings. One of the tactics that Google wants to crack down on are bought links for page rank and ranking well in the serps.

Although Google claims to want to go after folks that buy back links for pr and placement I don't think that they really do that. I also don't think that us reporting anyone for buying links is a good thing. SEO is SEO, if someone finds a way to rise in the rankings, good for them. I do find it odd that Google doesn't look at a site with 300,000 to over 1,500,000 backlinks and not wonder why all of the one way links pointing in. Of course, if those links come from surfers posting links to their favorite porn...good for the website, that's what it's all about. However, it seems that it'd be quite easy for Google to determine whether the incoming links were from posts or from other websites that are selling links. I'd imagine that, in the not to distant future, the sites that sell back links will get targeted by Google and lose all of their pr and then the sites that they link to will follow suite. I've seen Google knock SEO tactics like this out in one fell swoop on more than one occasion in my 12 years in this business.

IMHO the immediate dilemma for tube sites is more along the lines of converting their traffic into more money than it costs for the bandwidth.

If their major financier, Adult Friend Finder, is unable to pay the tubes as they used to for ads, and MasterCard regulations prohibit folks that advertise on the tube sites (remember the normal advertiser on adult sites is the pay sites but they can't really advertise on the tube sites because the tubes are basically giving away pay site content for free...hence the pay sites don't have much to offer a surfer to join up) from stealing from the surfers that sign up (that's basically what they were doing with the check boxes), then the $$$ coming into the tubes becomes much less. If this happens, and their bandwidth fees stay the same, they could not be able to pay for bandwidth and be forced to shut their sites down.

This is an assumption and it's not correct.