I'd really appreciate any feedback you can give on LforLinks.com
It's a new kind of link submission site, where everyone has to review a few other links before submitting. The idea is to have a scalable link directory which is less prone to spamming and abuse.
Postive or negative feedback on any and all aspects of the site would be appreciated, but especially the core process of reviewing and submitting.
Finally, how would you describe the site? "Link submission site"? "Directory"? "Social Bookmarking"? I can't quite decide, as it is a bit different to everthing else out there. Help appreciated!
Many thanks to those who take the time.
The layout is very well done. The content is readable and the background designs for the containing divs are really nice. I would suggest though that you work on your top link text colors. The blue is a little in my face too much.
Thanks for that. I'm going to make the link descriptions (Between the title and url of each link) black/grey so it isn't such a mass of blue - I assume that is what you mean.
try to change the color of odd or even numbered list items. so if 1 is blue, then 2 is green (for example) then 3 is blue ... etc
As with what has been said above, too much (bright) blue! It just looks like a wall of links and doesn't draw you into read any. Alternative colour schemes on the links (what Shref said) should rectify that problem.
I don't like the Lforlinks header on the top left, as your using an image you could either make it more graphical or just use plain text and style it with CSS.
Personally, not to keen on the blue hue in 'L' and 'Links', possibly a darker shade would look better. And the green background on the Login/Submit a link looks very out of place.
I do like the idea however, I haven't received my login details yet on my email so i'll come back to evaluating the sign up process!
I must disagree. I think the theme and layout of the site is beautifully done. Fits the sites purpose very well. I also want to congratulate you on a great idea and i hope it works out well.
I love the sites structure, and while the logo might be a bit of a downer the site looks very nice.
At first when i visited it felt cramped ,but just moments later it all fit together. Site is very well made and I honestly cannot criticize it much. I am registering as we speak , will give deeper input once i get to browsing as a member.
As of now thesite gets a 9/10 from me and needs no improvement the way I see it.
I'm planning to freshen up the design a little soon, so it is great to get feedback from everyone before I do that - thanks to everyone who's been commenting.
Feedback on the review/submit process is great, as it is what the site is really about. Anyone else have any comments on it?
- I would shrink the site width to the standard 1000 or 1024 pixel width to make it more universal.
- The backgrounds are very nice but the header text and links dont fit. Personally I'd go with white boxes/black text or just plain white text
- I have no idea what the % is for in the links
- The idea seems a little obscure in my opinion. Why come here instead of msn or google?
- Feels a little plain to me. Would be nice if you could have an image for your top links, or more. People like to skim, I'm one of them heh.
Hope this was helpful
Do you really want to know the true description of such a site?
Ok here goes >
Look it up sorry!
http: //seoblackhat.com/2005/08/18/ spammers-guide-to-link-dumping-where-to-dump/
There, there is a chat about links dumps (just join the URL together if you want to read)
Please excuse my ignorance =P
It is absolutely not a link dump. I have reported this poster to the moderators.
Every link on the site is reviewed by at least three people to ensure there is absolutely no spam on there, as he would know if he taken the trouble to review the site properly.
You do not have to like the content of a site, but this section of the forums is meant to aid fellow members in altering, optimizing, and otherwise improving a site they have posted up for review.
I never said if I like it the dude asked what is that type of site called
I answered the question so he could find out more info on what he is dealing with
To me that is helpful. If the type of the site is regarded as a negative that is not my bad I answered LeonforLInks question
" Finally, how would you describe the site? "Link submission site"? "Directory"? "Social Bookmarking"? I can't quite decide, as it is a bit different to everthing else out there. Help appreciated!"
My answer "Link Dump"
With some extra thing so he can check out some background
If that isn't helping the dude just because the type of site in question is a "Link Dump" how is that not being helpful
I answered his questions didn't I?
As far as optimising such a site I wouldn't know where to begin (and I do SEO) as such sites are notorious
Maybe Google can throw some light on things http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=66356
Jeez the guy asked I answered LOL
This isn't a direct reply to Keith (MrFlicks), I'm looking for helpful feedback from as many people as possible:
That Google link refers to "link schemes", "disregarding the quality of the links" and "for the sake of cross-linking", which is obviously not the case for a site where every link is reviewed by multiple people.
If the nature and purpose of the site isn't obvious (even after reading the original review request!), I'd like to hear opinions on how to improve it. The last think I want is for anyone to mistake it for some kind of "link scheme".
The intention is to provide a site that highlights new, quality, well-categorised links, but without some of the downsides and bias that sites like Digg have.
I can appreciate that while it's getting started, there aren't enough links to always make it obvious to uneducated casual visitors, but is there anything inherent in the design or content that would make genuine marketers/authors/webmasters not want to contribute to it?
The problem you have with the site is it is a "Leak" site
What I mean is that the links all head off out and the ratio of external links by it's nature are going far outway the internal linking structure.
That's all very well for SE's like Google delivering up links
But can you see why such link (places) are not liked by Google etc?
The reason is because such link laden places take away searches from the SE's so the SE's don't like them.
It will hardly matter to the likes of Google that the links are "moderated" they have DMOZ for that.
I am likely not being clear what I am trying to get across. Seems anything negative said is not allowed so saying things properly is some what difficult and obviously limits any thing that can be said. Be that a helpful thing or not.
There is a lot of old info about on the subject of sites like this but finding the discussions and statements is a little harder these days as Google has done some major clean ups the past months and so many things that could easily be found b4 are buried deep these days.
The main problem you have though Sir is that there are a hundred other sites all very similar spread across the net so as you say You need something to stand out you need that USP
I don't see one
People can suggest USP's to you.
But seriously is anyone going to give a USP away to make such a site successful or would it not be the case they could do it their self or as soon as it was typed someone else can do it. USP then becomes something else entirely and not a USP
I think that is where the key lays and not in SEO or optimization as that is a real glue factory job and you certainly shouldn't looking for or hoping to achieve high ranking SERPS for such a site other then for your name and whatever slogan you use and a couple of other things as all the links will be pouring the scores ourwards
That is your link juice is being poured outside the cup and not inside if you get my drift?
I have sites where I know my own internal networking linking is giving a neg link juice factor but if it affects the SERPS too much I need those links in place to save me months of extra writing. Those links go to my own network and not external and they are still a link juice loss factor
Where I identify those external links as the cause for the lack of high ranks they will have to be removed.
I am not sure how such a site as lforlinks is supposed to work tbh as if moderated the links still don't keep people on site. I just don't get it
You misunderstand me. It isn't intended to increase your rank at Google, though I can appreciate some people in these circles (less well educated than you, Keith!) see everything in those terms and for them, it won't have immediate appeal - that's OK, I actually don't really want links form that kind of people, I'd rather have contributors rating good content than flagging up spam.
For the benefit of anyone who doesn't appreciate it, significant website traffic does not just come from Google, but also social media (Twitter, Facebook, etc) and social bookmarking (Digg, Reddit, etc), hence the often talked about "Digg effect" which causes websites to crash under sheer volume of traffic when pages get listed at the top of Digg. What the site is ultimately intended to provide to contributors is traffic, not PageRank. Of course LforLinks doesn't have those huge levels of traffic yet, it has only just gone live.
The USP of LforLinks and what sets it apart from social bookmarking sites is that everyone has to review other links before they post one of their own. I think that is unique - I haven't seen or heard of any other site like it and it avoids some of the major problems with sites like Digg and Reddit. Like I said, if these things aren't obvious to anyone from looking at the site and they need to be, I'd like to get feedback on that.
Is this confusion caused because I didn't make it clear enough on the site that links with low review scores don't get listed?
I'll update the "About" page, perhaps that will help.
I am pretty sure there will be sites that require a review or two first Leon
Just take the website review section here on SP it is the same and partly in place as an anti spam measure no doubt.
IMHO you need more than that as your USP Leon. I am just trying to be honest dude. Rack your bring and come up with something that is yours only that is unique and that makes you really stand out.
There are a number of sites on WordPress running similar things to this, in fact there are plugins available to add this function I think I saw in passing. I have never looked at them personally as the idea has never appealed to me tbh.
I know people who work for sites that do reviews and for doing so they get free products from er nameless Companies so review said products.
I am sure you will get people adding their links though, I just don't really get it though as it is not something I would use.
But I might point out I don't do links.
Well not putting my links about in directories or such like (I think I did it once back in 2004 in a London Business Directory but it affected my SERPS so I regretted it).
I am sure there are many thousands that will like somewhere to add their links though as many are totally obsessed by this.
Go on DP and see.
Look at any thread that asks how to improve SERPS and 9 times out of ten the answers will be spreading your links about.
So in some ways it's fair to say you are on to a winner.
When I land there my immediate recation is "Oh another one of those sites".
As a surfer I get no further than looking at the page links and the submit URL thing and as I don't submit URL's I am gone
for everyone 1 of me you have a thousand who will think
aha somewhere else to put my link
He does actually make an interesting point there - does anyone else think having an obvious "Submit" link is a negative?
Would people with articles or sites to promote automatically realise they might be able to submit theirs and look a bit harder for the link to submit?
I do want it to appeal to people with quality links rather than people looking for easy SEO - is there anything one would look for that the other wouldn't?
site design is very impressive. user friendly.
next page →