New blog link list

I don't know why I debate this with you, your posts are getting further and further from the real world.

RE: "This is how developers seem to approach the problem." It may be how you approach the problem, but don't try to put your shortcomings on other people. For the last time, no business spends time and money trying to make their product or software inferior to the competition. Some may be inferior because too little time or money was spent on them, or because they were written by a bad programmer, but no software house deliberately spend money, time, and resources to make their product inferior.

RE: "The businesses that use content filtering are going to be a bit more careful about where they host their sites. If their competition host on adult hosters then they would use this in aggressive marketing." This is probably true, but what the hell has it got to do with the original point ? You were replying to my post that says that companies need to know what is on other servers, remember ? You even quoted it before making this statement. True it may be, but it is as pointless as if I said "All your posts are wrong because fish swim in water".

RE: "It would make a more family friendly search index" The only thing that would make them more family friendly would be if they stopped listing "adult" sites. If they did as you suggested they would only index 5% of the (non-adult) sites on the net. And by the law of averages in the majority of cases (19 searches out of 20) the other search engines would list better sites in each search than Google did. So If the surfer typed in, for example, "fishing blog" and clicked on the first site in Yahoo, he would get a better site than the first site in Google. On average he would only get as "bad" a site on Yahoo as Google's best site if he went to the bottom of the second page of results. How long do you think it would be before Google got no surfers?

RE: "For some blogs......Pointing out that a competing webmaster is hosting a business client on an adult hoster could severely impact on that webmaster's commercial viability." Yes but other than morally bankrupt webmaster's like you, do you really think anyone is going to consider a blog a big enough threat to have to go to the time and expense of reverse checking all existing blog's IPs just to try and put a few out of business ? OK, I admit that there are a few people like you who would do that, but they don't tend to get far up the corporate ladder, and they also tend to give themselves away doing things like posting on web boards.

RE: "I think that you should try explaining to some kid's parents the benefits of having their kid's blog linked on a site with links to adult related material." Actually a better idea would be explaining to the parents that the kid was surfing these places in the first place, I think they probably need to know this. (N.B. the word "probably, I don't want to get into an argument over the harm porn does kids over the harm being told off by their parents for looking at porn. That is another can of worms and not one I am qualified to have a public opinion on).

As I keep saying, please think before you post. Although the last point is a sensible one, and the penultimate one is probably sensible to someone who sees blogging as cutthroat a business as you do, the first three points are just silly and not worthy of a five year old. I genuinely cannot understand why you made them.

rsynnott -
RE: "Ah, you've obviously never used censorware." I have never seriously used any filters of any kind but I have "played with" a few and been forced into using some on other people's systems. I have never seen one I could be happy with myself.

RE:""The Website Traffic Club"? Really...." Not sure what you are asking here.

jmcc -
RE "The algorithms to decide what is work friendly/family friendly are a bit more sophisticated than that but reducing the dataset on the basis of keywords does work" I'm going by what you said. You claimed that Google penalise sites if they are on the same IP as adult sites, then when I argued this you said that they will do this in a while. I was pointing out the absurdity of your suggestion. I was not making claims myself on how SE's work, I was pointing out that if they penalise sites simply because of other sites on the same IP it will make a joke of their results. EG, if someone creates a blog similar to Smeggle's but better and hosts it on the same server as me, then by your logic, Google will list Smeggle's site before the better one, because it is on a "clean only" host. Since the majority of sites are on hosts that also host "adult" sites, this means that the majority of better sites will be listed after those that are not as good. It will not take long for people to notice and stop using Google. Google, not being stupid, are not going to do something that will loose them custom. You will notice that the only thing I use of my own is a little basic maths (go back to my previous posts if you want to check the maths), all the rest of the info is what you said about SE algorithms, not what I understand about SE algorithms.

RE :"Morals in business? This is business rather than blogging." Might be for you, but for me as I said before, blogging is for fun, my other sites are for making money. Oh and you may want to look at the forum heading, it says "blogs" there, that is why I came here.

RE "no history of posting here..." So that is what you got against me, because I am new here (actually it was my second post, but you are close enough). You get your kicks from stomping on newbies then. Hell just when I think you are as low a form of life as you can be, you go one step lower.

RE: "Your site is hosted on an IP with a predominantly adult site list. The hoster you host with has a predominantly adult client list of domains. The evidence isn't exactly favourable to your position." If this matters to you, fine, don't add your site to my list. If you think it should matter to other people, then OK, you have said so. This is, after all, a place where you can place your opinions. However stop trying to mislead people by posting things you know are untrue, and trying to confuse people by posting nonsense. It is not fair on other people who read this (especially people new to blogging who have come here to learn). When you post things about my site, well I started this thread so I expect that, it is what a "forum" like this is for. But when you post lies and misinformation about search engines you don't hurt me, you hurt other members of this board who are genuine, and want to learn something. Also you hurt the board itself because anyone coming here and reading your rubbish is going to think that everyone here is an idiot and go elsewhere. So let's get this over once and for all:

jmcc thinks you should not add your blog to my list because my site is hosted on an IP with a predominantly adult site list. The hoster I host with has a predominantly adult client list of domains. He also objects to the fact that I am new to this board. And he objects to the fact that I put up a temporary page for posting links on when I first posted (it was created in a hurry and was not very fancy, well to be honest it was very basic indeed as it was a temporary one). All these things are true, and if you also object to any of them you should not post your links on my site (jmcc said so).

OK ? Happy now?

Now please stop trying to confuse everyone by posting Bull**** about the search engines. You are making life hell for anyone who is using this board to learn about the business, and making yourself look stupid to those who already know the facts.

For those of you who wanted to see the design of the site I have uploaded an example page showing what the site will look like when finished (in about a week). Please note that this design is not final, I may make a few minor changes during the week. Also note that I have only uploaded a copy of the index page, so the links to the other pages WILL NOT WORK (except for the link to the "submit your blog for listing" page, which should go to the page to use to get your blog listed on the site when it goes live next week). The pages with the links on them will be similar to the page you see, except that they will NOT have the column that talks about the Website Traffic Club. Instead the column headed "Blogs, Online Diaries, Online Journals" will be a lot wider and contain the links to the blogs I am listing.

You can get to the example page through this link:
http://www.fun-and-knowledge.com/blog-list/example.shtml

Rereading my last post I just realised that it looks like I am just defending the site. I am not, If the site is hurting anyone's eyes, regardless if they have better, worse, or identical monitor to mine, I need to know. However I am not going to change the site just because people hate "the general overall design (or lack thereof)" or dislike the colour black. But if Bard, Figment, or anyone else who is reading this finds that looking at the site genuinely does hurt their eyes, please post, and also say why it is hurting your eyes, a simple "yes" or "no" is no help.

Thanks.

Blacknight, thanks for replying, but as I keep saying, what I really need to know is WHY it hurts your eyes. I am aware it looks amateurish, as I keep saying that is deliberate, and I don't intend to change that, because the idea of the site is not to flatter my ego but to get traffic to the blogs, and if it looks too professional people will assume it is designed by a professional, to make money (i.e. assume the links are all paid adverts), and trust it about as much as they would a used car salesman.

However if it really hurt your eyes I need to change that. And as I just said "a simple "yes" or "no" is no help" I need to know WHY it is hurting your eyes.