Warning Pages... Do You Use Them?

When it comes to free sites, paysites, aen sites, etc, do you use warning pages on any sites that you build or, when promoting affiliate programs paysites, do you promote paysites that send surfer traffic to a wanring page first rather than the first actual tour page?

I have to admit, when it comes to free sites, aens, etc im more than happy to throw the wanring page up as it gives me an additional page to put ads on but, when it comes to sponsor programs using warning pages on their tours, unless they have a way to by-pass the warning page, i will typically shy away from promoting those sites.

How about you folks, do you use warning pages on your own sites and do you promote programs that have warning pages on their paysites before the actual 'tour'?

Regards,

Lee

We've always been proactive with warning pages on all our sites - along with links at the bottom advocating parental responsibilities and various child protection filters.

I know we still use warning pages, but I have noticed that a lot of single site companies do not.

We're not legally obligated to do so. So, with a few exceptions (extra add page on a free site), no, I don't use them. I'll add the adult label code -- if the parents have their filters in place, then their kid shouldn't see the site.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bec

We're not legally obligated to do so. So, with a few exceptions (extra add page on a free site), no, I don't use them. I'll add the adult label code -- if the parents have their filters in place, then their kid shouldn't see the site.

---

Even though we're not legally obligated - as a parent of two teenage daughters myself - I just enjoy the piece of mind that comes with doing what I can as an adult webmaster to keep kids from straying on to our site.

Unfortunately, warning pages are a drop in the bucket these days - with such a proliferation of easy-to-find porn everywhere online.

I think it's probably a reasonable argument that for affiliate traffic, one can bypass the warning page, under the theory that the affiliate should not be sending traffic that has not been age verified in some way.

However, for direct traffic, I think that having a warning page is advisable.

Also, of course, I think one can make a nice, snazzy warning page that will still give a clue of what's inside, but without any naughty bits... and in that case, it really shouldn't have that much of an impact.

I think warning pages serve no use at all, an adult site should be labeled RTA (also in the META tags!) and therefor automatically blocked in any browser that parents (should) have customized for their kids.

I only use warning pages on sites that are mainly focused on US traffic, some US sponsors even require a warning page before you can join their affiliate proggie. All my EU sites have no warning page, but all my sites are RTA labeled.

On the other hand, from all sponsors I've been using over the years, the only sponsor which I cannot link directly to model or product pages without circumventing the warning page is one of my top sponsors.

Is there any loss of traffic/income for an affiliate site that has a warning page?

I'm designing my sites (affiliate) with warning pages with the warning page as index.html. Then a link on that page to the actual blog, so the URLs might look like this:
warning page: MySite.com
homepage of actual site/blog: MySite.com/ms

Is this how it's done, or a bad idea for SEO? I would think that SE's should count the homepage of the blog most of all. Or should the warning page have some kind of code that makes the SE spiders skip it and go right to the homepage? If so, how?

Tim,

We've done testing with and without warning pages and joins are significantly impacted on sites that utlize warning pages.

In one instance, over the space of a 30 day period sales ratios dropped on one site from 1:350 to 1:875 with no other change other than the tour having a warning page on it.

Because of that, all of our upcoming site launches will be warning page free.

Regards,

Lee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tim460

Is there any loss of traffic/income for an affiliate site that has a warning page?

I'm designing my sites (affiliate) with warning pages with the warning page as index.html. Then a link on that page to the actual blog, so the URLs might look like this:
warning page: MySite.com
homepage of actual site/blog: MySite.com/ms

Is this how it's done, or a bad idea for SEO? I would think that SE's should count the homepage of the blog most of all. Or should the warning page have some kind of code that makes the SE spiders skip it and go right to the homepage? If so, how?

---

You can add nofollow tags and direct spiders however you like - but there's arguments on that for both sides.

These days Google crawls an entire site (has trouble with flash, tho) and the warning page doesn't hamper the pagerank unless its got something specific Google really doesn't like (like obvious blackhat tricks).

Thanks, Lee and Sir Guy (hot site you have!). That's a really serious impact, Lee, and really important to know. Speaks for itself.

Correct or incorrect, I presumed the reasons for a warning page (for an affiliate or any adult site) were:
1. We are legally safer (or not really?) with a warning page? I mean, the first pic on my blogs are often going to be very explicit, let alone the description of the blog on top, and LOL, well, hey the whole page.
2. Closer wrote that some sponsors require affiliates to have warning pages. And I'm definitely in the US.
3. I thought that those adult-nanny programs, which I want to join, required webmasters who sign up to have warning pages.

Anyone have thoughts on the above? Right now, with research showing a drastic impact on income...geez....maybe I shouldn't have a warning page.

Then what about all the terms the visitor has to agree on to enter the site?

i use them on my free sites but not on my gallery pages

Tim, not sure if my reply to your PM went thru earlier, so I'm reposting (a slightly edited version) here in the thread.

At the risk of provoking a lot of flame responses - I've often felt that too many webmasters simply chase after the almighty buck rather than exercise some responsibility.

Perhaps it's just the parent in me (I have two teenage daughters) - but if his 'study' results are factual and having warning pages lowers overall revenue...I'd be willing to sacrifice that money for the peace of mind knowing I'd done my small part to try keeping children from seeing our adult content. Unseen metatags are one thing...but warning pages serve as an obvious visual warning to all.

Running adult sites isn't my primary income these days - I tend to think of it as gravy. I work a separate, well-paying 9-5 job. Therefore website revenue isn't as big an issue for me. But regardless, there *was* a time years ago when our websites were our main source of income...and even then we still kept the warning pages up.

Perhaps what I'm trying to say is maybe some (emphasis on some) people are involved in adult for the wrong reasons, and simply don't give a care about others. Maybe some webmasters who aren't parents themselves never stopped to really think about the issue.

I'm sure I'll be bashed for saying this, but so be it.

My two cents, anyways.

Thanks, Sir Guy, hope you got my pm. I totally understand where you are coming from and respect that. Anyone who is fair must respect your decisions, which are thoughtful and easy to understand.

For personal reasons which I will spare you here, my situation is different than yours. I very much need the income. Anything that takes away more than half of this income sure does get my attention.

I believe not all but many people, and certainly myself, do share a concern for kids. I've also always presumed a warning page was part of the basics of being an adult webmaster, let alone being plain responsible. This thread really started me thinking and investigating. Here's part of the mix:

First, signing up with Adult Restriction and Nanny...etc. groups obviously does help and indicates webmaster responsibility. (I thought they required warning pages...but I guess they only request?) It seems to be the only thing that actually works, if we are talking about real results rather than simply ideals.

Warning pages function differently in practice than intended. Think of the actual percentage of teens going to adult sites sites. OK. Let's say only the percentage of "good kids" without serious behavior problems, kids who likely will be caring, responsible parents and citizens. These are people who are or have been through puberty, some with driver's licenses, learning sex ed in schools, and many likely having sex with others and themselves. Is it really surprising at all that these people might not only be curious about adult websites if not visit them at times? Please don't misunderstand, I mention this ONLY to say that websites are not like stores, where you can call security or the local police to evict trespassers. In reality warning pages just don't work a lot of time. They don't even work much for adults who are suppose to leave if offended by sexual material.

Then whose responsibility is it when a child has access to a porn site, or alcohol in the pantry, or other adult items? I think it's the responsibility of the parents/guardians. Unlike a brick and mortar biz, we don't have security guards or local police to call if a minor enters an adult website. The only thing we can do that does work and truly means something for real is sign our websites up with adult restriction groups.

Considering these things, a warning page functions mainly to show a site's philosophical commitment to keeping the site for appropriate visitors, for its own sake and/or hoping this will help prove this commitment in case problems show up. And the legal risks of having or not having a warning page is what I really want to know right now. I've read on this thread that we are not obliged legally. But do warning pages give "protection" in any practical, worthwhile way to a site/webmaster? If not, I don't see a reason for having them.

So that's where I'm at. Lee, I don't know if you would or could have a forum on legal concerns, protocol, issues on GWW. It would be really useful and practical if we could. I'm a member of an organization that is fighting for our rights in the adult industry, but even they don't have anything to say, or know what to say, when asked anything pertinent, from my experience. They seem more into employing lawyers for lobbying purposes.

I personally like warning pages!

For me it sets the stage that some "adult"/"nasty" is about to be shown...sort of like the good old days when I would go to an adult book store and all of the windows would be blocked out and you had the warning (must be 18) to enter sign on the door...

I always got a hardon even before I entered the store...so I think once again, that it sets the stage for the surfer and that's a good thing - IMHO

No, I have not done any formal study to validate this...just my feeling.

:)

Lee

In case my past confusion misled... RTA label seems like the easiest and most direct of all. While, the ASACP recommends a warning page, RTA (which is like an arm of the ASACP) doesn't require one.

With RTA and ICRA labels, I don't see any need for warning pages these days, provided the site has a porn name. I'll use them for small free sites if the link lists require them.

VISA requires a warning page, or a front page that has no explicit content on it.

Jimmy