do you optimize your site for 800x600? - GoFuckYourself.com

moneybiz · 03-12-2007, 07:12 PM

I optomize for 1024x768 because I think it looks better but does that hurt my sales?

Vendzilla · 03-12-2007, 08:21 PM

whens the last time you saw a pc for sale that was set up for 800x600?

Methodcash Rick · 03-12-2007, 08:22 PM

Stopped doing 800x600 about a year ago, now we do at least 1000 wide

donkevlar · 03-12-2007, 08:24 PM

I usually keep it somewhere in the middle so people with small monitors don't have to scoll over TOO much but its still wide enough.

armus · 03-12-2007, 08:52 PM

Me too find 800*600 meaningless however still rather the all resolution set CSS

Barefootsies · 03-12-2007, 09:29 PM

No I do not.

Nor do I code video for dial up. It's 2007. Get broadband.

Jon Clark - BANNED FOR LIFE · 03-12-2007, 09:54 PM

95% of our clients request there work at 800...

DjSap · 03-12-2007, 09:58 PM

I'm about to jump over to 1024 now, by the way does anybody have any good stats in terms of screen res per country, or maybe somebody can check their members stats?

Last month I think the worldwide average was around 13-14% at 800x600, however I'm guessing most of these are in third world countries.

Socks · 03-12-2007, 10:12 PM

1024x768 - 52.68%
800x600 - 13.97%
1280x1024 - 12.71%
1280x800 - 7.46%
1152x864 - 3.11%

Sample of about a million visits. The list goes on but that'll do.

Farang · 03-12-2007, 10:36 PM

nope, if surfer can't buy a monitor, he's not going to pay for porn

Viper2K1 · 03-12-2007, 10:42 PM

I optimize for 1024*768 since about a year, but keep 800*600 a bit in mind
800*600 looks so tiny on a widescreen monitor
I even use 1024*768 on my 14" laptop-screen

donkevlar · 03-12-2007, 10:46 PM

Is anyone taking into consideration the growing popularity of WiFi internet access from PSP, Archos, etc?

martinsc · 03-12-2007, 10:49 PM

nope, only 1024....

bdld · 03-13-2007, 12:24 AM

i dont make any tables wider than 800.

SuzzyQ · 03-13-2007, 12:25 AM

1024x768

moneybiz · 03-13-2007, 12:25 AM

thank you

2MuchMark · 03-13-2007, 12:28 AM

If someone hasn't spent money in the past 8 years to upgrade past 800x600, they sure won't be spending money today either, especially on a porn site.

Forget the past. Make a site built for broadband, big screen, kick-ass pc's. Users with the latest and greatest technology love to push their machines to the limit, and like spending money to do so.

Mark Prince

cranki · 03-13-2007, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

If someone hasn't spent money in the past 8 years to upgrade past 800x600, they sure won't be spending money today either, especially on a porn site.

Forget the past. Make a site built for broadband, big screen, kick-ass pc's. Users with the latest and greatest technology love to push their machines to the limit, and like spending money to do so.

Mark Prince

word.

TeenCat · 03-13-2007, 12:46 AM

people with 800/600 dont have money so why? its as you will be doing sites without nice design only with logo and some collored tables for 56kb modem users right?

useless

ALOTI · 03-13-2007, 12:48 AM

1024x768 , but usually try to stay to 900 wide.

TheJimmy · 03-13-2007, 01:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DjSap

I'm about to jump over to 1024 now, by the way does anybody have any good stats in terms of screen res per country, or maybe somebody can check their members stats?

Last month I think the worldwide average was around 13-14% at 800x600, however I'm guessing most of these are in third world countries.

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

INever · 03-13-2007, 01:20 AM

I'm doing 978x1305. Don't most browsers automatically reduce to fit?

cones · 03-13-2007, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by INever

I'm doing 978x1305. Don't most browsers automatically reduce to fit?

I hope you're joking....

Very scary responses in this thread.

madawgz · 03-13-2007, 01:35 AM

fuck that , any new site i make will be bigger than 800x600

2012 · 03-13-2007, 01:53 AM

depends on what it is on the page and how you're presenting it .. i like the bottom scroll bar lately, I think it's been heavily neglected ~ the good folks at myspace don't seem to care ... but the correct answer would be 1024x768 unless you have an 800x600 resolution then you might tend to disagree...

INever · 03-13-2007, 01:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cones

I hope you're joking....

Very scary responses in this thread.

Wait, I'm not the web designer but when I browse the web it doesn't matter what size the pics are, my Firefox browser shrinks them to fit inside the browser...it will say 55%, 33% or 76%, etc. in the header so you can see the amount of reduction.........then a magnifying glass tool can enlarge them. Don't know if it works that way in other browsers, but that's how it is in Firefox.

Avery · 03-13-2007, 02:03 AM

I agree ！！！！

Farang · 03-13-2007, 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by INever

Wait, I'm not the web designer but when I browse the web it doesn't matter what size the pics are, my Firefox browser shrinks them to fit inside the browser...it will say 55%, 33% or 76%, etc. in the header so you can see the amount of reduction.........then a magnifying glass tool can enlarge them. Don't know if it works that way in other browsers, but that's how it is in Firefox.

this thread is about sites, not pics

MarkTiarra · 03-13-2007, 02:12 AM

If this helps:
Across 2 paysites in the last day:

Site1:
12232 49.39% 1024x768
7049 28.46% 1280x1024
2408 9.72% 800x600
1966 7.94% Unknown
971 3.92% 1152x864
109 0.44% 1600x1200
29 0.12% 640x480

Site 2:
12475 50.33% 1024x768
6649 26.83% 1280x1024
2622 10.58% 800x600
2030 8.19% Unknown
830 3.35% 1152x864
149 0.60% 1600x1200
30 0.12% 640x480

Also a good note:
MSIE 6 is 47%, MSIE 7 is 26% and Firefox 1&2 is 16% (the rest mixed).

2012 · 03-13-2007, 02:23 AM

i think the best way to go is to design for an 800x600 at this time but allow it to "stretch" to bigger resolutions maintaining an equal composition to larger resolutions, that's where a good designer/html guy comes in ... if you care ... or if and when you're paid to care ...

Boobzooka · 03-13-2007, 02:25 AM

It would be nice to assemble these stats just from the inside of members areas.

FlowerKid · 03-13-2007, 02:54 AM

I think many surfers with high screen resolutions don't maximize the browser windows. They have opened also other applications like WinAmp for playing music or the media center for watching TV while browsing the internet. The size of the website design isn't that important i think. It's just important, that the site looks nice.

darling2 · 03-13-2007, 03:22 AM

Amazingly many of our members have 800x600. That said we do everything at least 1000 pixel wide. 800x600 sites look bad and I think we have to think about the majority who can enjoy the full resolution. The rest will upgrade their system sooner or later anyway.

jayeff · 03-13-2007, 04:02 AM

Several usability studies suggest that surfers far and away prefer full-screen layouts. Assuming they are correct, fluid designs would seem to be the best way to go. But...

The graphic layouts popular for paysite tours often cannot be handled that way (although it is technically possible to make static graphics resizable, the results are usually poor). Expanding text also has to be done with care, since many people are not comfortable reading overly wide lines. And if you do go for a fixed-width layout, the choice of width isn't as simple as looking at popular screen resolutions, because many who have larger screens do not browse full-screen. Before totally abandoning the 800x600 crowd, you might also consider how much effort you put into tweaks to chase much smaller parts of your potential audience.

The subject needs some thought, because horizontal scrolling is very high on surfers' lists of things they hate. If you are going to force surfers to scroll horizontally, I strongly recommend keeping the things you need them to see (such as navigation) on the left of the screen, using the area right of 760 pixels for content (which they will probably be more inclined to scroll for).

I would stick currently to 950 pixels or less for fixed-width layouts, but more importantly than the simple width issue, do you check your designs to see what happens when Firefox users (for example) change the font size with a turn of their mousewheel? You can't stop them doing that and the results can be horrendous. Many fluid designs break at that point, not only fixed ones.

2012 · 03-13-2007, 04:27 AM

"The subject needs some thought, because horizontal scrolling is very high on surfers' lists of things they hate."

I know it sucks but what surfers? The surfers with their dick in one hand and credit card in the other or the ones who give a fuck about graphics and if your page is correctly done so other designers think you know what you're doing?

MSIE 69.3 %
FIREFOX 19.3 %
NETSCAPE 2.6 %
Others 8.7 %

Empress_JoinRightNow · 03-13-2007, 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moneybiz

I optomize for 1024x768 because I think it looks better but does that hurt my sales?

1024x768 is the stardard screen resolution...the users or surfers will find your site odd...

jayeff · 03-13-2007, 04:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fartfly

what surfers?

There are mainstream businesses which spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on usability studies. It's entirely up to you whether you think they are accurate or relevant...

Actually I'm not even sure what point you were making. Mine was go whatever way you think is right, but put some thought into it beyond "everyone has big monitors, so I can do big layouts".

Zester · 03-13-2007, 05:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon Clark

95% of our clients request there work at 800...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Socks

1024x768 - 52.68%
800x600 - 13.97%
1280x1024 - 12.71%
1280x800 - 7.46%
1152x864 - 3.11%

Sample of about a million visits.

Quote:

Originally Posted by darling2

Amazingly many of our members have 800x600.

I think the above is enough to design a web sites that is compatible to 800x600 and looks great at 1024x768, and is compatible with higher resolutions.
using tables that use % instead of fixed width can be very handy here.

-some uses with 800 are still gonna convert to sales - don't lose them.
- in the near future a lot of users will use over 1024 - act now thinking of the future.
- your number 1 goal is for the 1024 users to see the best design.

2012 · 03-13-2007, 05:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jayeff

There are mainstream businesses which spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on usability studies. It's entirely up to you whether you think they are accurate or relevant...

I would just like to see one or know the source.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jayeff

Actually I'm not even sure what point you were making.Mine was go whatever way you think is right, but put some thought into it beyond "everyone has big monitors, so I can do big layouts".

thank you great post. I agree

eroticsexxx · 03-13-2007, 05:14 AM

1024x768 is my default for building sites

But a Flash based site with a coded width and height of 100% will stretch ( or shrink ) to whatever size the resolution is set to

With Flash you might get a bit of distortion on higher rez's, but it all depends on the quality of the images you put in.

jayeff · 03-13-2007, 05:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zester

using tables that use % instead of fixed width can be very handy here.

Not using tables at all would be even better...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zester

your number 1 goal is for the 1024 users to see the best design.

Your goal should be for everyone to see a site which will encourage them to spend money. I'm not being facetious. There are lots of threads around the boards in which webmasters take seriously topics which at best might bring their audience up a couple of points here, a couple there. But then for some reason when we get onto talking about screen resolutions, plenty seem happy to make choices which might cost them 10%+, with barely a second thought.

That's not logical, although yes, I suppose if for some reason you cannot satisfy everyone equally, you would put your biggest audience first.

2012 · 03-13-2007, 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eroticsexxx

1024x768 is my default for building sites

But a Flash based site with a coded width and height of 100% will stretch ( or shrink ) to whatever size the resolution is set to

With Flash you might get a bit of distortion on higher rez's, but it all depends on the quality of the images you put in.

bad idea

lalika · 03-13-2007, 05:38 AM

yes i've been told to

..but what for?!?

Big John · 03-13-2007, 05:45 AM

Many valid points in this thread but equally many very dumb ones. To suggest, as many posters have, that up to 14% of your traffic with 800x600 res does not spend money and is OK to piss off is at beast very, very shortsighted.

markz08 · 03-13-2007, 05:49 AM

most of the users now are switching to 1024 X 768 res.

Murderous · 03-13-2007, 05:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donkevlar

Is anyone taking into consideration the growing popularity of WiFi internet access from PSP, Archos, etc?

I was thinking about this last night while surfing GFY in the tub on the PSP I won from islanddollars.com last summer.

I believe I will be making myself some mobile friendly versions of my sites.

2012 · 03-13-2007, 06:23 AM

. WML/WAP .

mikesouth · 03-13-2007, 06:50 AM

1280x1024 here

myy members love it

p0rnus · 03-13-2007, 06:52 AM

nope, 1024x768

2012 · 03-13-2007, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by p0rnus

nope, 1024x768

thats right homie, don't get slapped

03-12-2007, 07:12 PM	#1
moneybiz So Fucking Banned Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 1,391	do you optimize your site for 800x600? I optomize for 1024x768 because I think it looks better but does that hurt my sales?

03-12-2007, 08:21 PM	#2
Vendzilla Biker Gnome Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: cell#324 Posts: 23,200	whens the last time you saw a pc for sale that was set up for 800x600? __________________ Webair died? Carbon is not the problem, it makes up 0.041% of our atmosphere , 95% of that is from Volcanos and decomposing plants and stuff. So people in the US are responsible for 13% of the carbon in the atmosphere which 95% is not from Humans, like cars and trucks and stuff and they want to spend trillions to fix it while Solar Panel plants are powered by coal plants think about that

03-12-2007, 08:24 PM	#4
donkevlar Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 4,325	I usually keep it somewhere in the middle so people with small monitors don't have to scoll over TOO much but its still wide enough. __________________ [email protected]

03-12-2007, 09:29 PM	#6
Barefootsies Choice is an Illusion Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Land of Obama Posts: 42,635	No I do not. Nor do I code video for dial up. It's 2007. Get broadband. __________________ Should You Email Your Members? Link1 \| Link2 \| Link3 Enough Said. "Would you rather live like a king for a year or like a prince forever?"

03-12-2007, 09:58 PM	#8
DjSap Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 3,869	I'm about to jump over to 1024 now, by the way does anybody have any good stats in terms of screen res per country, or maybe somebody can check their members stats? Last month I think the worldwide average was around 13-14% at 800x600, however I'm guessing most of these are in third world countries. __________________ Blog Themes, TGP Design, Writing Services, Grunt Work ICQ: 66871495

03-12-2007, 08:22 PM	#3
Methodcash Rick Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 1,720	Stopped doing 800x600 about a year ago, now we do at least 1000 wide

03-12-2007, 08:52 PM	#5
armus Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 235	Me too find 800*600 meaningless however still rather the all resolution set CSS

03-12-2007, 09:54 PM	#7
Jon Clark - BANNED FOR LIFE North Coast Pimp Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: 304-534-757 Posts: 9,395	95% of our clients request there work at 800...

03-12-2007, 10:12 PM	#9
Socks Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2002 Location: Toronto Posts: 8,475	1024x768 - 52.68% 800x600 - 13.97% 1280x1024 - 12.71% 1280x800 - 7.46% 1152x864 - 3.11% Sample of about a million visits. The list goes on but that'll do.

03-12-2007, 10:36 PM	#10
Farang one sick puppy Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Where the worst of the West meets the worst of the East Posts: 11,565	nope, if surfer can't buy a monitor, he's not going to pay for porn __________________ i sale uncensored chatbots

03-12-2007, 10:42 PM	#11
Viper2K1 Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,006	I optimize for 1024768 since about a year, but keep 800600 a bit in mind 800600 looks so tiny on a widescreen monitor I even use 1024768 on my 14" laptop-screen __________________ Spank me Dude, where's my traffic?

03-12-2007, 10:46 PM	#12
donkevlar Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 4,325	Is anyone taking into consideration the growing popularity of WiFi internet access from PSP, Archos, etc? __________________ [email protected]

03-12-2007, 10:49 PM	#13
martinsc Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: 127.0.0.1 Posts: 27,047	nope, only 1024.... __________________ Make Money

03-13-2007, 12:24 AM	#14
bdld $100,000 Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 11,452	i dont make any tables wider than 800.

03-13-2007, 12:25 AM	#15
SuzzyQ Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Along the shore. Posts: 1,557	1024x768

03-13-2007, 12:28 AM	#17
2MuchMark Videochat Solutions Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 49,258	If someone hasn't spent money in the past 8 years to upgrade past 800x600, they sure won't be spending money today either, especially on a porn site. Forget the past. Make a site built for broadband, big screen, kick-ass pc's. Users with the latest and greatest technology love to push their machines to the limit, and like spending money to do so. Mark Prince __________________ Custom Coding \| Videochat Solutions \| Age Verification \| IT Help & Support www.2Much.net

03-13-2007, 12:46 AM	#19
TeenCat Too lazy to set a koala Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: CZ/EU forever! Posts: 16,139	people with 800/600 dont have money so why? its as you will be doing sites without nice design only with logo and some collored tables for 56kb modem users right? useless __________________ 6bot / Coming again very soon! Svit Zlin Radio 24/7!

03-13-2007, 12:48 AM	#20
ALOTI Registered User Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: No Va Posts: 93	1024x768 , but usually try to stay to 900 wide. __________________ ICQ 69687129

03-13-2007, 01:20 AM	#22
INever Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: .......in a niche, in orbit...... Posts: 3,614	I'm doing 978x1305. Don't most browsers automatically reduce to fit? __________________ I love Camdough

03-13-2007, 01:35 AM	#24
madawgz 8.8.8.8 Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Noordermarkt Posts: 30,509	fuck that , any new site i make will be bigger than 800x600 __________________ TAEMDLRMSKRJIXMRLSMRJ.

03-13-2007, 01:53 AM	#25
2012 So Fucking What Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 17,189	starting not to care. depends on what it is on the page and how you're presenting it .. i like the bottom scroll bar lately, I think it's been heavily neglected ~ the good folks at myspace don't seem to care ... but the correct answer would be 1024x768 unless you have an 800x600 resolution then you might tend to disagree... __________________ best host: Webair \| best sponsor: Kink \| best coder: 688218966 \| Go Fuck Yourself Last edited by 2012; 03-13-2007 at 01:56 AM.. Reason: i still use 640x480 doh !

03-13-2007, 02:03 AM	#27
Avery Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 450	I agree ！！！！ __________________ go fuck yourself

03-13-2007, 02:12 AM	#29
MarkTiarra Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: NJ Posts: 3,833	If this helps: Across 2 paysites in the last day: Site1: 12232 49.39% 1024x768 7049 28.46% 1280x1024 2408 9.72% 800x600 1966 7.94% Unknown 971 3.92% 1152x864 109 0.44% 1600x1200 29 0.12% 640x480 Site 2: 12475 50.33% 1024x768 6649 26.83% 1280x1024 2622 10.58% 800x600 2030 8.19% Unknown 830 3.35% 1152x864 149 0.60% 1600x1200 30 0.12% 640x480 Also a good note: MSIE 6 is 47%, MSIE 7 is 26% and Firefox 1&2 is 16% (the rest mixed). __________________ Retired Pornosticator

03-13-2007, 02:23 AM	#30
2012 So Fucking What Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 17,189	i think the best way to go is to design for an 800x600 at this time but allow it to "stretch" to bigger resolutions maintaining an equal composition to larger resolutions, that's where a good designer/html guy comes in ... if you care ... or if and when you're paid to care ... __________________ best host: Webair \| best sponsor: Kink \| best coder: 688218966 \| Go Fuck Yourself

03-13-2007, 02:25 AM	#31
Boobzooka Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: BOOBZOOKA.COM Posts: 626	It would be nice to assemble these stats just from the inside of members areas. __________________ BOOBZOOKA: Amateur Affiliate Program featuring SellYourSexTape: Real couples document their lovelife for one week. HerBedroomWindow: Girls recording themselves alone at home. \| DareRing: "Truth Or Dare?" themed adult party games.

03-13-2007, 02:54 AM	#32
FlowerKid Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Zurich Posts: 1,045	I think many surfers with high screen resolutions don't maximize the browser windows. They have opened also other applications like WinAmp for playing music or the media center for watching TV while browsing the internet. The size of the website design isn't that important i think. It's just important, that the site looks nice. __________________

03-13-2007, 03:22 AM	#33
darling2 Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 345	Amazingly many of our members have 800x600. That said we do everything at least 1000 pixel wide. 800x600 sites look bad and I think we have to think about the majority who can enjoy the full resolution. The rest will upgrade their system sooner or later anyway.

03-13-2007, 04:02 AM	#34
jayeff Confirmed User Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 2,944	Several usability studies suggest that surfers far and away prefer full-screen layouts. Assuming they are correct, fluid designs would seem to be the best way to go. But... The graphic layouts popular for paysite tours often cannot be handled that way (although it is technically possible to make static graphics resizable, the results are usually poor). Expanding text also has to be done with care, since many people are not comfortable reading overly wide lines. And if you do go for a fixed-width layout, the choice of width isn't as simple as looking at popular screen resolutions, because many who have larger screens do not browse full-screen. Before totally abandoning the 800x600 crowd, you might also consider how much effort you put into tweaks to chase much smaller parts of your potential audience. The subject needs some thought, because horizontal scrolling is very high on surfers' lists of things they hate. If you are going to force surfers to scroll horizontally, I strongly recommend keeping the things you need them to see (such as navigation) on the left of the screen, using the area right of 760 pixels for content (which they will probably be more inclined to scroll for). I would stick currently to 950 pixels or less for fixed-width layouts, but more importantly than the simple width issue, do you check your designs to see what happens when Firefox users (for example) change the font size with a turn of their mousewheel? You can't stop them doing that and the results can be horrendous. Many fluid designs break at that point, not only fixed ones.

03-13-2007, 04:27 AM	#35
2012 So Fucking What Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 17,189	"The subject needs some thought, because horizontal scrolling is very high on surfers' lists of things they hate." I know it sucks but what surfers? The surfers with their dick in one hand and credit card in the other or the ones who give a fuck about graphics and if your page is correctly done so other designers think you know what you're doing? MSIE 69.3 % FIREFOX 19.3 % NETSCAPE 2.6 % Others 8.7 % __________________ best host: Webair \| best sponsor: Kink \| best coder: 688218966 \| Go Fuck Yourself Last edited by 2012; 03-13-2007 at 04:30 AM.. Reason: content ?

03-13-2007, 05:14 AM	#40
eroticsexxx Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nassau, Bahamas Posts: 3,133	What about Flash? 1024x768 is my default for building sites But a Flash based site with a coded width and height of 100% will stretch ( or shrink ) to whatever size the resolution is set to With Flash you might get a bit of distortion on higher rez's, but it all depends on the quality of the images you put in. __________________

03-13-2007, 05:38 AM	#43
lalika Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 390	yes i've been told to ..but what for?!?

03-13-2007, 05:45 AM	#44
Big John Confirmed User Join Date: May 2006 Location: Never never land Posts: 470	Many valid points in this thread but equally many very dumb ones. To suggest, as many posters have, that up to 14% of your traffic with 800x600 res does not spend money and is OK to piss off is at beast very, very shortsighted. __________________

03-13-2007, 05:49 AM	#45
markz08 Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 735	most of the users now are switching to 1024 X 768 res. __________________ Sextoys - Sex Toy Store - Sextoys by the thousands at this awesome sex toy store. Find everything you're looking for. Sexy Girls in Panties

03-13-2007, 06:23 AM	#47
2012 So Fucking What Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 17,189	. WML/WAP . __________________ best host: Webair \| best sponsor: Kink \| best coder: 688218966 \| Go Fuck Yourself

03-13-2007, 06:50 AM	#48
mikesouth Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: My High Horse Posts: 6,334	1280x1024 here myy members love it __________________ Mike South It's No wonder I took up drugs and alcohol, it's the only way I could dumb myself down enough to cope with the morons in this biz.