Fuck sg

Anyone with a brain wouldn't be supporting that site. The reason why they have dropped so much? people are seeing them for what they are/speaking out about it more.

Good models are leaving because of the shitty ways they treat them, it's all pretty simple. They are suing left/right because they all of this. Rather than fixing it, they are going to keep digging themselves a deeper hole.

Porn's been around online for awhile now. I would assume most porn viewers don't pay attention to what's popular.. More so what gets the job done. I speak both from working in porn myself, and being someone who enjoys porn (does view it online).

I was speaking more for the people who actually pay to view a 'certain' girl. Or even take part in the community over-all. I do think there is a good amount that have noticed what's been going on. It's starting to take a toll now.

It's all a matter of opinion.

Raising the membership is apart of the BS SGs has been doing. People are not supporting the BS they are doing to the website. Not to mention how cheap they have gotten with their content. I wasn't just talking about the LP issue, but SOME people did leave because of that. Just like SOME people did leave over every other issue that's happened. Everything took part in it, everything together took a toll. On it's own it might not seem like much at all. All together, yea.. it does add up (to a point).

Someone should tell alexa.com that SG did not sue Deviant Nation, the government sued it's owner for hacking the SG site.

zing!

The case was called the U.S. vs. Chad Grant, and the amount was for about 20K according to the case records online?

http://suicidegirlx.com/stuff/Transcripts/Day%201/1.1%20-%20Pre-Trial.pdf

Please clarify.

hy are they suing kate?

and ex-staff photographer Philip Warner's website lithiumpicnic.com which was apparently ramping up to compete with SG at the time they filed suit against him.

I hope this is sarcasm, because if it isn't, you dont know what the hell you're talking about.

Agreed w the comment above... No one pays for porn anymore... Now a days it seems like people are only on SG for the 'social' aspect of it. And now that so many good models have left people don't even seem to stay for that anymore.

You're an idiot.

Gloomdolls was competition? No, It was someone posting dishonest information on a website.

Also, in fairness. Their traffic peaked when they really started getting serious about suing some people.

Sometimes, traffic just slips, and their ranking is till just dandy.

Did I mention that you're an idiot?

They aren't opinions. They are fact. Including this person being an idiot.

Oh, and just an FYI, why didn't your industry insiders mention that their are more members now than in 2005? Just less people hitting the refresh button every 3 seconds to see if someone commented on their post.

People come and go.

With regard to the current downward trend, any number of things could be to blame, but I wouldn't credit or discredit all the negative stories circulating SG's business as the main contributing factor; it has had some impact, but I don't think it is the definitive reason why there's a decline.
Two points previously addressed that I agree with are the tendancy to get free content elsewhere and/or different content alltogether.

I understand the layout of the graph provided.
However, you'll notice that the decline doesn't really come into effect until the third quarter of 2006, leaving just 2007 to suffer the hit.
From 2005-2006, things were up and down, leaving only 2007 down, way down. But that doesn't mean it's out.
I'm not trying to defend their business practice, but I'm just speaking realistically here.

I don't look at their site because I think half of their models look like dog food. :)

I think SG is a mixed bag like most other porn sites. There are ugly - and pretty - girls all over porn (all porn, alt and otherwise) so when people say 'SG will take anyone' it's probably worth considering that most other sites' standards aren't that different.

lol, a lot of the girls on GGs look exactly the same as the ones on SGs. Some of the girls were on SGs actually.

I don't see the difference.

Come to think of it.
I'd be viewed as fat/larger (when I'm not) on either of those websites. Most of their girls have smaller chests, hardly any hips and are generally very thin (not saying having any of that is a bad thing, read on to get my point before jumping my bones). They all start to look the same for awhile. To add to this, I've been lurking on GGs for almost 7 months. Debating on trying to join up for good. They started to look/act the same as SGs the more i dug up, so I passed on it. =/

I guess they didn't want models that look like dog food. Don't sweat it, you're kids will thank you later.

in some people opinions maybe. but have you considered that you might be "dog food" to somebody..just like they are to you?

dont be a dick.

I wouldn't put too much faith in that graph. The Y axis is the percentage of total net traffic, not the total number of hits. So presumably SGs ranking could be effected by the explosion of hits on youtube, facebook and other recently big sites, even if their number of daily hits were in fact increasing.

thanks for posting this graph, it makes me happy to see how shitty they are starting to do

i was under the impression (i don't know the numbers) that their membership has kept up a steady growth as well but it looks like they tried to hit back pretty hard with the recent sets and those comment numbers mirror the graph.

maybe they need something easier than the automatic 'i loved it' button. maybe the demographic has shifted younger again and caught them a bit unawares. maybe they're putting some veteran models out to pasture. maybe they're just ridding themselves of some old sets. i don't know but the numbers look like early 2005 to me.

First, Alexa.com has never been a terribly accurate account of a site's true traffic count, especially for pay-per-view sites like SuicideGirls. The spiders can't access certain sections of the website and therefore can't accurately ascertain its viewership.

Moreover, the drop doesn't take into account the redesign that took place in the spring of 2006. The new layout became heavily Flash and AJAX based, which very significantly screws with pageview numbers. Example, visiting a certain page you may be clicking on several different links without ever seeing the page reload (thanks to both Flash and AJAX) whereas before the redesign you may have loaded 5 or 6 pages to do the same thing. Therefore a "pageview" doesn't mean the same thing for each incarnation of the site.

The same is true for many other "Web 2.0" sites that make heavy use of AJAX and Flash, their pageview numbers are not a true indication of their viewership. Sites like MySpace, which is poorly designed and creates unnecessary pageviews looks like it has more traffic than sites like Facebook, which didn't even allow spiders to crawl most of its site until recently.

I'm not saying there hasn't been a steady decline in viewership on SG in the last 2 years, but this isn't very convincing evidence to say as much.