Jump to content

Cre8asiteforums Internet Marketing
and Conversion Web Design


Photo

What makes a good directory?


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#1 JohnScott

JohnScott

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 350 posts

Posted 14 June 2003 - 07:13 AM

Many web directories exist on the Internet: Yahoo!, DMOZ, JoeAnt, Gimpsy, Zeal/L$, GoGuides, ETC.

I'd like to ask for some imput on what makes a good directory? What makes a bad directory?

Some obvious things are Size (yes, it has always mattered :) ), deadlinks, basis for submission (paid submission being a bad thing),and speed of review and inclusion.

Anything else you would like to see in a web directory?

#2 Thanol

Thanol

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 260 posts

Posted 14 June 2003 - 09:19 AM

I'm assuming this is for BlueFind so...

I like descriptive and objective descriptions; that make sense and are clear, unlike some DMOZ stuff. They also must be at like an 8th grade, or lower, reading level some unlike some Zeal/LookSmart stuff, I mean seriously do they expect most people to know what peruse means?


Oh, and they have to check for those domains that get taken over by those wierd search engine sites.

And a good amount of Editors that are good and helpful.

#3 Grumpus

Grumpus

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 6264 posts

Posted 14 June 2003 - 09:42 AM

Hiya John,

I don't think paid submissions are really a bad thing so long as you can demonstrate an ROI for the prospective person. I think that comes later in the life of a directory, though. You aren't going to just start up your directory and have the traffic to provide that ROI (and even if you go PPC route, you won't have any conversion ratio trends to show people that it's worth what you are charging). Down the road, though, I think paid inclusions (of some sort) is very viable.

One of the biggest mistakes I see folks make with directories is that they focus their attention on getting people to submit their sites rather than making the directory useful for surfers. The problem here is that it isn't useful for surfers, so webmasters aren't going to bother listing their site in a directory that people aren't going to surf.

And finally, I think it's important to not try to get too many categories from the get-go. Start with just the top level very broad categories and wait for those to fill up. Once you see 20 sites in there, then you can find common themes amongst them and split at that time. One of the worst things you can do is create a gazillion cats that are going to be empty and that go very deep into the tree. A surfer is going to click once, see nothing, go deeper, see nothing, then exit before they get down to any of the cats that actually might have something in there.

Granted, I'm talking only from my own very limited experience (heck, our webmaster directory hasn't had an outside submission, yet - but I think that might be because we don't have PR so it comes up gray or 0 - not encouraging to potential submitters. Once we get the PR going, if google ever updates, I can better assess what's going on).

Anyway, I still think it's important to encourage submissions quietly - even in the background. Potential submitters know that it's a directory so that there MUST be some way to submit to it. If they find it useful themselves, they are likely to believe that others will to and then they'll want to get their site in there. (At least that's what I'm hoping). :)

G.

#4 JohnScott

JohnScott

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 350 posts

Posted 14 June 2003 - 10:08 AM

Hiya John,

I don't think paid submissions are really a bad thing so long as you can demonstrate an ROI for the prospective person.


My issue with pay per click or paid submission is this: It can encourage the management to not list a site. A good directory, IMHO, is all-inclusive. If there is a good site out there, list it! But if the paid submission is available, I might think, "No, let's wait and see if we can't make some money off these guys" That's a bad thing, IMO.

Likewise, paid submission can be conducive to a lowering of the editorial integrity. (Think Yahoo) If a site has no unique content, reject it. Money just confuses the whole editorial guidelines.


One of the biggest mistakes I see folks make with directories is that they focus their attention on getting people to submit their sites rather than making the directory useful for surfers.


Agreed. As a ODP editor, I submitted most of the good sites; the sites submitted (for the most part) were submitted to the wrong category, or were spam. I think a good directory should welcome user contributions, but focus on finding the good, useful sites out there. Passively waiting for user contributions is a mistake.

And finally, I think it's important to not try to get too many categories from the get-go.


The start up is definately the hard part. It will be a race to 1 million URLs, and then we can relax a bit. The advantage is having paid editors adding sites 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. Still, if you think about it, dmoz has 3.8 million sites listed. I'd be a fool to say we're going to compete with that w/o understanding the implications; however, I'd also be a fool to put another JoeAnt or GoGuides on the Internet. If we're going to do it, we're going to commit the resources to it to become the best.

@Pachy,
Thanks for the imput. The issue with using a commonly known vocabulary is something I had not thought of. Good point.
8)

#5 mrdch

mrdch

    Ready To Fly Member

  • Members
  • 28 posts

Posted 15 June 2003 - 09:16 AM

IMHO - the plain and simple answer to that question is:

A good directory is one that offers the USERS (searchers) some added value above and beyond the currently available directories.

In other words, the user should have a good reason to use the directory, IN PREFERENCE to other directories. There is no point in replicating Yahoo, DMOZ and LS. Not only it will take a massive amount of time, money and effort - but the END result will be 'yet another directory'. What purpose would that serve?

So, the quest is to discover a way that assists users in finding sites which are JUST what they wants - no more and no less. Isn't it the holy grail of all the search sites ? :)

MC

#6 JohnScott

JohnScott

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 350 posts

Posted 15 June 2003 - 09:55 AM

IMHO - the plain and simple answer to that question is:

A good directory is one that offers the USERS (searchers) some added value above and beyond the currently available directories.

In other words, the user should have a good reason to use the directory, IN PREFERENCE to other directories. There is no point in replicating Yahoo, DMOZ and LS. Not only it will take a massive amount of time, money and effort - but the END result will be 'yet another directory'. What purpose would that serve?


I think this goes to the heart of the issue. If Yahoo!, DMOZ, L$, ETC, didn't need replacing, I wouldn't be doing it. Nobody I know will argue that any directory out there is worth wasting time on, except for one: DMOZ.

And the stated purpose of the directory is to surpass DMOZ in every desirable way. If DMOZ was keeping up; if DMOZ had the resources needed to keep up, there would be no use for BlueFind, and it would be an absolute waste of time. Being second best is just as worthwhile as being tenth best when it comes to directories.

#7 mrdch

mrdch

    Ready To Fly Member

  • Members
  • 28 posts

Posted 15 June 2003 - 11:13 AM

I am happy we are in agreement!

I'd like to ask for some imput on what makes a good directory? What makes a bad directory?

Some obvious things are Size (yes, it has always mattered  :) ), deadlinks, basis for submission (paid submission being a bad thing),and speed of review and inclusion. 


Perhaps you want to keep your directrory under wraps - which is fine, but the examples you gave of what you believe are relevant factors - are not consistent with your stated purpose.

Size - well, it does matter, but only to a small degree. Beyond 20-30 sites/category the law of dimishing returns kicks in BIG TIME.
Paid submission - that is the least of the USER's concern - if the search results are excellent.
Speed of review - users wouldn't give a monkey, if they get what they want.

I think I am just repeating the points raised already very clearly by Grumpus - but I thought I'll just add my voice to the chorus :)

MC

#8 JohnScott

JohnScott

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 350 posts

Posted 15 June 2003 - 12:06 PM

I am happy we are in agreement!


I'd like to ask for some imput on what makes a good directory? What makes a bad directory?

Some obvious things are Size (yes, it has always mattered  :) ), deadlinks, basis for submission (paid submission being a bad thing),and speed of review and inclusion. 


Perhaps you want to keep your directrory under wraps - which is fine, but the examples you gave of what you believe are relevant factors - are not consistent with your stated purpose.


Not consistent? How? (I'm often dull - you'll need to make a sherper point.)



Size - well, it does matter, but only to a small degree. Beyond 20-30 sites/category the law of dimishing returns kicks in BIG TIME.


How is that? I'm an adult - I don't need somebody else to pick and choose what's good for me. Compare this to this.

If I want a search engine, I'll use Google or ATW; if I want a complete listing of sites by category, I'll use a directory that lists ALL the sites.

I recently got a "Valley Pages" phone directory. About 100 pages. I went to look up a computer hardware store's phone number. It wasn't listed. The wanna-be phone directory went into the trash.

Listing all sites with applicable unique content is what being a directory is all about.

And diminishing returns? For whom? The webmaster, or the user?


Paid submission - that is the least of the USER's concern - if the search results are excellent.


I disagree. Paid submission kills directories. I never use Yahoo! or L$ for one reason - tons of spam, and obmission of good sites. A directory must be a directory. What good would a phone directory be if everybody had to pay $299 a year to be included? It would be the same amount of trash Yahoo is.
I am a user. I want this directory because I'm a user. When I go to a category, I want to find ALL applicable, unique content sites. Not just the ones that could afford it; and not the ones that shouldn't be listed, but got listed anyway because they could afford it.


Speed of review - users wouldn't give a monkey, if they get what they want.


Users aren't going to find what they're looking for if the review process is slow. ("Come back in three years after we've reviewed the submitted sites"?) Like I've said, I want to find all applicable sites when I'm doing a directory search. It goes directly to the heart of the usefulness of a directory.

#9 Nick

Nick

    Honorary Member

  • Members
  • 309 posts

Posted 15 June 2003 - 12:36 PM

I'm an adult - I don't need somebody else to pick and choose what's good for me. Compare this to this.

Great. I'm an adult but I don't have all the time in the world. When I'm presented with a page full of links, what the hell am I supposed to do? It's all very well having a big list, but being spoiled for choice is another. I'd settle for the Yahoo list. I haven't got time to read every description and trawl through them. That's why we have search engines - to do that for us.

An important factor would be the actual searching itself. As an end user, a drill down structure is great, but no more than a couple of levels. I don't want to drill down 6 levels (even if every one is crammed with links). It takes time. Need to be able to find what they want as soon as they hit the site, in no more than 3 or 4 clicks. I get bored otherwise.

Similarly some way of cross referencing categories. The one thing I find a right pain in the **** is a directory whereby sites feature in multiple categories, where the categories are effectively the same. If you get to this stage then there needs to be cross-linking between the two categories, or even merging the two categories dynamically so all links are on the same page.

How about the actual list? Is alphabetica the best way? Perhaps when they're submitted they can be rated and listed this way, or rated by users. Or perhaps by popularity.

Descriptions shouldn't be similar. If there's a list of 50 links, why do we have descriptions all filled with the same keywords and phrases! By all means include those for searching links (just don't show them to us). But in my opinion the description should contain information about what the site offers that is different to the rest. What slant does the site use, how big is it, how old is it, trustworthy? Maybe it's not useful for the directory structure itself, but it's improving the directory as a whole; giving users that added extra to make a better choice about which link they choose. Otherwise they'd be wating their time.

From an end user point of view, paid listings and so on mean absolutely nothing to me. I wouldn't (and don't) care - I just want my links relevant, and I want them now. Only then can we have our cake and eat it :)

#10 JohnScott

JohnScott

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 350 posts

Posted 15 June 2003 - 12:40 PM

I'm an adult - I don't need somebody else to pick and choose what's good for me. Compare this to this.

Great. I'm an adult but I don't have all the time in the world. When I'm presented with a page full of links, what the hell am I supposed to do? It's all very well having a big list, but being spoiled for choice is another. I'd settle for the Yahoo list.


Cre8asite Forums was on the DMOZ list; it wasn't on the Yahoo list. :)

#11 Nick

Nick

    Honorary Member

  • Members
  • 309 posts

Posted 15 June 2003 - 12:44 PM

So be it. But with 45 links on DMOZ, I was hardly likely to find it anyway.

#12 Thanol

Thanol

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 260 posts

Posted 15 June 2003 - 03:43 PM

You might want to limit the number of submissions that go to a particular site's pages.

For example if you go to
http://www.zeal.com/...jhtml?cid=56154

Then click on any of the nations, you'll come to a couple site profiles from 1Up Info. It's like that in some other parts of the directory too.

I'm not saying that 1Up Info is bad though, but it's diverting traffic from equally useful, if not better, sites.

#13 Black_Knight

Black_Knight

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 9339 posts

Posted 15 June 2003 - 05:47 PM

We're in the queue (free submission) for that particular Yahoo category. And before you tell me free submissions don't work anymore, the site in my sig line was a free submission and comes up in the first page for "web marketing", so it certainly does still work. :)

#14 JohnScott

JohnScott

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 350 posts

Posted 15 June 2003 - 06:12 PM

We're in the queue (free submission) for that particular Yahoo category.  And before you tell me free submissions don't work anymore, the site in my sig line was a free submission and comes up in the first page for "web marketing", so it certainly does still work. :)


Kinda missing the point. The DMOZ URL had plenty of forums, including this one. That's useful. The Yahoo category had few listings; not useful.

Or at least that's my take. I see others see otherwise, and feel that DMOZ should go kick out all but 5 sites per category. (?) Or is ten ok? Don't want to overwhelm anybody here. :wink:

#15 Black_Knight

Black_Knight

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 9339 posts

Posted 15 June 2003 - 07:30 PM

I wasn't missing the point, just making an important side-point before some loyal fan decided to submit us when we're already in the queue. :)

I'm between the two camps here, because I like a directory to be big, but I also want it to sort and collate info for me. I want a score system or something similar, that allows me to find the 'best' or at least, the most feature-rich sites first and leave the stragglers at the bottom.

Alphabetical listings are pointless to me unless the descriptions are far longer than most directories allow, and give me a damn good, impartial overview of the key features of that particular listing.

The Yellow Pages directories work because they give me locations, and thus I can narrow down a long list very quickly to a handful that are of use to me, but in the virtual world, distance is no object. Instead I ned a directory to provide other sorting criteria.

For buying stuff, a decent shopping search engine like Pricerunner.com, Kelkoo or Dealtime is far more useful since it lists by price and recommendation. For Other searches, often a consumer opinions site like dooyoo, ciao or epinions is far more useful than any directory because it gives me independant ratings as a sorting criteria.

To be honest, I can't remember the last time I had to search for anything for which a directory was the best option. They just aren't that useful because they give me raw data, not decent information. If I want a list of all the companies that supply electrical goods in my country, I'm better off searching Google and limiting it to UK pages, having results sorted by citation value, than I'd be in using any web directory I know of.

I definitely do not want a directory that lists 45 sites, but when you check, they are all resellers of the same damn product at the same damn prices. That's bloat, not depth. :)

Seriously - I just don't really see much use for a directory these days unless it offers sorting criteria, which I believe is much of what Nick was getting at. There is no value in adding more data, unless you also add more sorting of that data. Alphabetical just doesn't cut it in this age.

#16 Thanol

Thanol

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 260 posts

Posted 15 June 2003 - 07:30 PM

Personally i don't think that many people, with ample internet experiance, accually use the directory as a directory, so it wouldn't really matter how many sites are entered as long as they aren't mirrors/inactive

#17 JohnScott

JohnScott

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 350 posts

Posted 16 June 2003 - 06:02 AM

I think three very valid questions have been raised here.


1.

Great. I'm an adult but I don't have all the time in the world. When I'm presented with a page full of links, what the hell am I supposed to do? It's all very well having a big list, but being spoiled for choice is another.


This begs the question, Why a directory format? I think when a directory is being discussed, a lot of people haven't first answered this question. A web directory is not a replacement for a search engine. When I am looking for, say, an SEO Forum, I usually don't go to DMOZ and type in "SEO Forum". Google is better for that. When I'm looking for concrete home info, I don't go to DMOZ and do a category search.

But I do spend a lot of time (hours upon hours) at DMOZ. It is when I'm researching that I do this. When I've done research for ICF/ Concrete Home articles, I want to see all those sites that aren't showing up in the search engines. That's what directory searches are good for. When you're researching a particular subject, you like to have all the info at your disposal. The BlueFind directory is meant for this purpose - to assist research by topic. A researcher's directory.

2.
The second point is brought up by Pachy. Thanks Pachy! :lol: The BlueFind directory addresses the issue that Zeal and DMOZ have poorly dealt with. Deeplinks.

http://www.hotshotsd...ir/category/743

You can see that each category has two parts: Web sites and web pages. The reason we came up with this is Zeal. I was browsing through Zeal one day, and I found that they love to deeplink - they have a ton of SP threads listed, including this one. I don't think I'd go as far as listing junk threads such as that, but you get the idea. The problem with the way Zeal does it is, they list forum threads along side entire web sites. We seperate them. Web sites up top, and then if we find good articles that qualify, those go down below in the Web Pages part.

After all, some articles in forums like this one are very informatitive, and we want to make that information available to the researcher.

3.
The third point was brought up by Black Knight. The ranking of sites is very important to the user. We will be listing the sites alphabetically to begin, and then we hope to change that within the first 2 years. We'd like to get something going along the lines of Google's DMOZ directory. Where that technology comes from is a question too far down the road to answer now. "If we built it, they will come" - My motto for now. :D

#18 Black_Knight

Black_Knight

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 9339 posts

Posted 16 June 2003 - 01:26 PM

Yup, points 2 and 3 are the main area to be addressed in any upcoming web directories.

Your answer to point 2 is actually quite brilliant. 8)

The display order takes what Yahoo began (whole categories first, then sites, then pages) and makes the pages part an actual part of the directory, not needing a thirdparty search engine add-on.

Point 3 is the real battleground for the web directories, and to my mind, is how which web directories are prominent next year and the year after will be determined. It is adding intelligent sorting criteria, and usable sorting, to actually help the user find what they need.

Zeal was the first that I noticed to address this issue, by adding peer review, right back at the beginning, before it was bought up by Looksmart. Peer review is a powerful criteria in many ways, and thus should always beat least one of the options built in. Naturally, this means accepting user 'votes' or 'ratings', and ensuring that no user can make multiple votes or ratings to boosttheir own site, or at least, not enough to significantly skew the system.

Google's notion of sorting by PageRank is another useful idea, and one that could easily be used by other directories now. Alternately, simply designing something that works like the first step of MarketLeap's link popularity checking tool, seeing the total number of results returned from a selection of engines and using that figure to create an overall "citation" score, could be easily added, and exceptionally valuable.

Find and add in a couple more criteria, and you have a choice of ranking options, or even a ranking algorithm that is simple yet everso effective. Do so, and you've moved the entire standards of web directories forwards, and gained ground on that battlefield for future prominence. :lol:

#19 JohnScott

JohnScott

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 350 posts

Posted 17 June 2003 - 09:06 AM

Thank you for your imput, Black Knight. I think the ranking issue will require the most thought. It'll be a definate issue for us in the future.

I prefer ranking by PageRank, but even that is not perfect. Lord knows I want to stay away from the editor-rating systems.

#20 Black_Knight

Black_Knight

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 9339 posts

Posted 17 June 2003 - 11:19 AM

I think the ranking issue will require the most thought. It'll be a definate issue for us in the future.


That's going to be true of everyone in the game, John, so you're in plenty of company. Like I say, ranking criteria is the big battleground for the future of directories.

Limiting to just PageRank gives you one major disadvantage - it promotes Google as much as it promotes your own site's value. Also, new sites submit to directories to help them get a pagerank, so you could find that many submissions don't have one at first.

I think a more general 'link popularity' score might be more appropriate to you, giving your directory more independance (and allowing you to still value sites that Google has banned for private reasons - like webposition.com etc).

You're right to not want editors (alone) to assign ratings, and yet, used as just one measure of many, this could actually help you to weed out bad editors. Spot where the editor's rating is wildly out of whack with either the majority of user-ratings, or other criteria and it can help you spot the rotten apples - before they do more serious harm.

I was thinking more of encouraging all users to rate the listings they selected. Not only does this give you peer review, but it allows you to interact more with users through the site - at the very least allowing you a far greater chance of setting cookies or taking better demographic information about your users and how they interact with the site.

#21 apeuro

apeuro

    Ready To Fly Member

  • Members
  • 29 posts

Posted 17 June 2003 - 02:09 PM

Limiting to just PageRank gives you one major disadvantage - it promotes Google as much as it promotes your own site's value.


Besides which, using PR is most likely illegal (PR is Google's intellectual property).

#22 JohnScott

JohnScott

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 350 posts

Posted 17 June 2003 - 08:15 PM

I think for seriously superior ranking, the directory will have to partner with a search provider willing to integrate its ranking system into the directory in the same way Google does with DMOZ.

First thing to do is become the best directory out there. That should open some doors for us that are not open to other directories.

#23 Black_Knight

Black_Knight

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 9339 posts

Posted 18 June 2003 - 02:34 AM

Limiting to just PageRank gives you one major disadvantage - it promotes Google as much as it promotes your own site's value.


Besides which, using PR is most likely illegal (PR is Google's intellectual property).


Actually I think Google would allow this via the API providing they believed that the directory was a genuinely good resource. As I said, it advertises them, and is therefore good PR of the older sort. :D

#24 Grumpus

Grumpus

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 6264 posts

Posted 18 June 2003 - 06:46 AM

I'm dying for 6-8 months to pass. By then, there should be enough user comments in our directory to see if the (rather clever) ranking system is actually going to work. Without going into detail, it's sort of a peer review system but it's weighted by several undisclosed factors. In the same way that people who submit sites to the directory eventually gain clout enough to be able to submit without being reviewed prior to publication, a subjective review of a listing by a user gains more power based upon certain factors.

Unfortunately, the system - while I'm sure it's one of the better ones out there - can't be properly tested until there is a big enough pool of reviewed sites to see how it all sorts.

Will be fun to see at this time next year if Ammon's ideas (and my programatic b*****dization of them) are doing what we think they should be doing.

G.

#25 JohnScott

JohnScott

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 350 posts

Posted 18 June 2003 - 10:43 AM

it's weighted by several undisclosed factors.


That's smart. Very smart.

#26 Guest_scottiecl_*

Guest_scottiecl_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 June 2003 - 09:51 PM

I agree inclusion is more important than paid submission- without sites to list there is no directory! I'm not opposed to paid submission after the resource has proven to be valuable.

What I would like to see is that unique content is truly rewarded and old stuff cleaned out on a regular basis. Dump the affiliate sites- only list the ones that offer value-added services. And tell me what those services are before I have to click on the link to check the site out.

I agree with Ammon- better descriptions would be key. Not keyword-stuffed descriptions but something that actually tells me what I am going to find on the site.

Bill's Car Lot- Automobiles for sale in the greater metropolis area.

What does that tell me? Pretty much nothing.

Bill's Car Lot- Virtual tours of automobiles for sale as well as a custom online quote system, interactive paint color selector and live support for questions.

Now, that's a site I would be interested in visiting!

#27 JohnScott

JohnScott

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 350 posts

Posted 19 June 2003 - 05:34 PM

Good point, Scottie. That is one thing I like about Zeal; the editors are encouraged to give a very descriptive description. I like the two sentence approach: First sentence indicating the general purpose, and the second sentence indicating specific features of the site.

By the way, BlueFind just picked up Rafal (apeuro) as our Editor In Chief. I'm extremely happy with this, as he is a great editor and has always shown extremely good judgement. :D

#28 Guest_scottiecl_*

Guest_scottiecl_*
  • Guests

Posted 19 June 2003 - 07:24 PM

WOW- that is great news for BlueFind! Best of luck to you on that.

#29 JohnScott

JohnScott

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 350 posts

Posted 19 June 2003 - 07:39 PM

Thanks! And, yes, great news. With apeuro showing the way, I have every confidence we will make the right choices to become a legitimately useful directory. *Overjoyed*. :D

#30 Black_Knight

Black_Knight

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 9339 posts

Posted 19 June 2003 - 09:14 PM

Oh that's great. Apeuro has a lot of respect, and earnt it all the hard way, so congrats to all involved. :D

#31 jonksharpe

jonksharpe

    Whirl Wind Member

  • Members
  • 78 posts

Posted 02 July 2003 - 05:40 PM

Is it just me or does Bluefind sound like an adult search engine?

#32 Black_Knight

Black_Knight

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 9339 posts

Posted 02 July 2003 - 06:22 PM

It does a little. :D

...and that's even before knowing John's reputation where women are concerned. ;)

#33 JohnScott

JohnScott

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 350 posts

Posted 03 July 2003 - 12:45 PM

BlueFind - You know You Want It.

;)

No, I'm thinking that would be PinkFind. 8)



RSS Feed

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users