Aurls: Adult URL Shortener

Hello users,

We recently launched our second URL Shortener site. AURLS Shortener is for Adult sites and Movies sites only. If you have an Adult site or movie-related sites then you can use our second URL Shortener. Or if you have a friend who has adult sites then you can refer him using Referral Link, Referral Commission is 10%.

Register Now
Test Link
Advertiser Rate: 1 USD/CPM
Publisher Rate: 0.8 USD/CPM
View Limit: 4 views/IP/Day
Minimum Withdrawal: 10 USD
Payment Frequency: Every Sunday
Referral Commission: 10%
Payment Methods: FaucetHub & UPI and PayTM (India Only)



Note: CPM is low because we are waiting for approval from Ad Networks after having stable Ad Network we will increase CPM accordingly.

 

Are you looking for a genuine review or are you just spamming your site?

 

Why do you think I am spamming?

 

The lack of links, that URI shorteners are a penny a billion, including stats that reek more of a prep to flip a junk page than promote a serious one, that a google search shows up five different sites with near identical spam on bitcoin related forums -- bitcoin itself a sleazy dirtbag spammy/scammy industry -- that you didn't ask for or specify what sections you are troubled about warranting a review but instead posted text that seems to want to encourage spreading the word about your site...

I didn't reply right away or seriously because I got the same impression of the "legitimacy" of this being an actual want of review.

That said, assuming you mean aurls.xyz...

Crappy xyz domain makes it feel less legitimate, the white on blue text is below accessibility minimums and likely means the page is useless to a LARGE swath of the population, pixel metrics on fonts, widths, paddings, etc that tell users of quality displays or with accessibility needs to go plow themselves, the crappy stock bootcrap-style layout, the goofy scripttard lazy-load of content on scroll, broken alternative navigation bespeaking a lack of proper semantics, the difficulty navigating the form -- they all add up to /FAIL/ at basic web design.

The load time is a wreck too, caused by the ridiculously absurd 1.69 megabytes of junk spanning 37 files on a page with only 1.91k of plaintext, four content images, and 7 or 8 form elements -- not even 10k of HTML's flipping job! That said page is wasting a 202k JavaSCript on a page that -- not counting recaptcha and analytics -- I don't see a single thing being done to warrant the PRESENCE of site-specific scripting? Unless said scripting is broken, I'm not seeing it... in fact the site doesn't seem functional for me at all in terms of actually doing anything when you TRY to do an initial shorten. Just sits there doing dick. Don't even get me started about the batshit insane 739k of CSS spanning 6 files when NO website really has any reason to have more than 48k of CSS in one -- maybe two -- file(s) per media target!

Popping the bonnet it's the typical monument to "3i" I've come to expect from the mental enfeeblement laundry list of how NOT to build websites that is bootcrap is involved. Seriously, go find a stick to scrape that idiocy off with before you go tracking it all over the Internet's carpets.

Garbage HTML 5 "shim" rubbish, absolute URI's for Christmas only knows what, incorrect usage of the -- already pointlessly redundant -- HTML 5 "structural" tags, endless pointless presentational classes for nothing, little to nothing remotely resembling proper semantics, incomplete forms, "Placeholder is NOT a label", gibberish nonsensical use of numbered headings, DIV doing P's job, DIV doing DL or TABLE's job, pointless DIV hiding form elementss that are already type="hidden" (serious "hurr-durrz eye canz has teh interwebs" that one), static scripting in the markup, made up fairy tale attributes, it's all the norm when the steaming pile of trash that is bootcrap is involved. But sure, keep telling me how much "easier" or "simpler" or "better for collaboration" it is. Goebbels would love that one.

It's almost a shock it's only 18k of markup... even if that is three times or MORE what should have been used. Just like the 20 times as much CSS as needed to do the same job.

It looks like something slopped together by someone unqualified to write a single line of HTML or CSS, with "design" concepts created by an Artist under the DELUSION they know what design is.

JUST another website that if a client brought it to me, I'd tell them to pitch the entire front-end in the can and to start over from scratch. Would take less time than trying to fix what's already there.

 

Because you never asked for a review, it reads like an advertisement and because you posted in the review section of the forum it reeks of spam.
If you want to advertise your site Digitalpoint has payed options for that.