Wetlook World ForumCurrent time: Fri 26/04/24 12:12:50 GMT |
Message # 35878.3 Subject: Re: Less wet pictures on Flickr. Are people getting wise to us? Date: Wed 28/05/08 13:01:30 GMT Name: Barry Email: barryseaweed@live.com |
Report Abuse or Problem to Nigel at Minxmovies
|
I think it's just the evolution of the internet. When I first had internet service in 1999, all of the good wetlook was on people's and organization's personal websites. Now, Google and Yahoo images don't turn up squat on those websites.
Then came Yahoo Groups. They used to be great for wetlook. Now, most of them have been long ago deleted by Yahoo for imaginary TOS violations, and the ones that remain haven't had any new material since Eisenhower. I logged into some Yahoo Groups a few days ago and it's safe to say that Yahoo Groups time has passed. They're dead.
After that came Webshots. I'm sure there's new material on Webshots somewhere, but lots of luck finding it. They put the new pictures in no chronological or numerical order.
It seems like right now Youtube is where it's at.
I also think some members of the community do the rest of us in on these photo and video sharing sites by posting what exactly wet clothes do for them in the comments section of these sites. |
In reply to Message (35878) Less wet pictures on Flickr. Are people getting wise to us?
By Desert Hawk - Wed 28/05/08 03:29:05 GMT It seems like there are a lot fewer wetlook pictures being posted on Flickr this year than in past years. Way fewer water ride and dunk tank pictures. I have also noticed an increasing number of links posted here that get deleted or restricted within 1 or 2 days of the link appearing here. Are more Flickr uploaders getting the premium account that identifies where hits are referred from? Is the word getting out that these kind of pictures are being viewed by a fetish community? |
Report Abuse or Problem to Nigel at Minxmovies
If you enjoy this forum, then please make a small donation to help with running costs:
(you can change amount)
|
[ This page took 0.014 seconds to generate ]