This is Interesting: Free Magazines for Graphics designers and webmasters
Home > Archive > Site Ratings & Reviews > March 2006 > A few changes -
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| jcsnippets.atspace.com 2006-03-02, 10:19 pm |
| Hi everybody,
A while ago I posted a request here to critique my site - the first thing I
was told to do was to validate my site. I've looked at the pros and cons for
doing so, and have started to validate my site.
At the moment, only the first page (index.html) will validate, but I'm
planning on doing the rest shortly (although some of them may already be
ok).
Some other things I wanted to ask:
- how do people feel about Google ads? To me, I don't find them too
intrusive, plus they have the style of the site.
- I've just hooked up with a banner exchange program as an effort to bring
more attention to the site - what do people think of these banners?
Personally, I'd like to give it a try for a few weeks, and just see how it
goes.
- at the moment I'm using a counter and a tool to log some info about the
homepage. I've already been told that this is probably better not done on
the site, and I agree. I'd like to get rid of the counters, but is there a
way to log hits without annoying the user with a counter or something
similar? At the moment, I'm using a free host, so log analyzers and stuff
like that are out of the question.
All ideas and suggestions are appreciated.
Here is the url: http://jcsnippets.atspace.com/index.html
Thanks,
JC
--
http://jcsnippets.atspace.com
a collection of source code, tips and tricks
| |
|
| In article <PZJNf.290537$u93.8787264@phobos.telenet-ops.be>,
admin@jcsnippets.atspace.com says...
> Hi everybody,
>
> A while ago I posted a request here to critique my site - the first thing I
> was told to do was to validate my site. I've looked at the pros and cons for
> doing so, and have started to validate my site.
>
> At the moment, only the first page (index.html) will validate, but I'm
> planning on doing the rest shortly (although some of them may already be
> ok).
>
> Some other things I wanted to ask:
> - how do people feel about Google ads? To me, I don't find them too
> intrusive, plus they have the style of the site.
I see them everywhere, and I tend to ignore them.
> - I've just hooked up with a banner exchange program as an effort to bring
> more attention to the site - what do people think of these banners?
> Personally, I'd like to give it a try for a few weeks, and just see how it
> goes.
If you have to ask, then you know the answer. Ask yourself, does it
serve a purpose to my viewers, or are they distracting them from my
content?
> - at the moment I'm using a counter and a tool to log some info about the
> homepage. I've already been told that this is probably better not done on
> the site, and I agree. I'd like to get rid of the counters, but is there a
> way to log hits without annoying the user with a counter or something
> similar? At the moment, I'm using a free host, so log analyzers and stuff
> like that are out of the question.
Hit counters, especially on the site you are working with, look very
amateurish and will hurt your credibility.
Many hosting plans can be found for less than $10/month that will give
you what you need.
| |
| Beauregard T. Shagnasty 2006-03-02, 10:19 pm |
| jcsnippets.atspace.com wrote:
> Hi everybody,
Good evening,
> A while ago I posted a request here to critique my site - the first
> thing I was told to do was to validate my site. I've looked at the
> pros and cons for doing so, and have started to validate my site.
That page has an incomplete DOCTYPE. All bets are off.
http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html
These are not legacy documents, correct? You should use the following
for new pages:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
> At the moment, only the first page (index.html) will validate, but
> I'm planning on doing the rest shortly (although some of them may
> already be ok).
In fact, I can't get the w3 validator ( http://validator.w3.org/ ) to
work with your page. It returns:
<quote>
I got the following unexpected response when trying to retrieve
<http://jcsnippets.atspace.com/index.html>:
500 Can't connect to jcsnippets.atspace.com:80 (Bad hostname
'jcsnippets.atspace.com')
</quote>
> Some other things I wanted to ask:
> - how do people feel about Google ads? To me, I don't find them too
> intrusive, plus they have the style of the site.
I don't see them; they are blocked by my HOSTS file.
> - I've just hooked up with a banner exchange program as an effort to bring
> more attention to the site - what do people think of these banners?
> Personally, I'd like to give it a try for a few weeks, and just see how it
> goes.
If these banner ads are of a common size, my browser will not render
them.
> - at the moment I'm using a counter and a tool to log some info about the
> homepage. I've already been told that this is probably better not done on
> the site, and I agree. I'd like to get rid of the counters, but is there a
> way to log hits without annoying the user with a counter or something
> similar? At the moment, I'm using a free host, so log analyzers and stuff
> like that are out of the question.
Counters make you look like an amateur. And most free hosts don't have
much more than raw logs, if that.
> Here is the url: http://jcsnippets.atspace.com/index.html
--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer
| |
| jcsnippets.atspace.com 2006-03-05, 6:18 pm |
| "saz" <saz1958@nospammersexcite.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e71301ae75307c398986a@newsgroups.comcast.net...
> In article <PZJNf.290537$u93.8787264@phobos.telenet-ops.be>,
> admin@jcsnippets.atspace.com says...
<snip>
>
> I see them everywhere, and I tend to ignore them.
That's fine by me - my main interest would be to see if people really
thought of them as being a nuissance.
bring[color=darkred]
it[color=darkred]
>
> If you have to ask, then you know the answer. Ask yourself, does it
> serve a purpose to my viewers, or are they distracting them from my
> content?
You are right - I know the answer. After only a few days, they bother me. A
lot. So if I'm bothered with them, I figure most (if not all) visitors will
be bothered with them as well.
And like you stated, they distrect attention from the content. I'm going to
remove them later this evening.
the[color=darkred]
on[color=darkred]
a[color=darkred]
stuff[color=darkred]
>
> Hit counters, especially on the site you are working with, look very
> amateurish and will hurt your credibility.
>
> Many hosting plans can be found for less than $10/month that will give
> you what you need.
By now I already found a solution which could work, without showing a
counter to my visitors - but I'm going to need to test it first. I'll expect
to get rid of the counters over the next few days.
Thanks for your time and advice!
Best regards,
JC
--
http://jcsnippets.atspace.com/
a collection of source code, tips and tricks
| |
| jcsnippets.atspace.com 2006-03-05, 6:18 pm |
| "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:U2NNf.8104$J02.6697@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> jcsnippets.atspace.com wrote:
<snip>
> That page has an incomplete DOCTYPE. All bets are off.
> http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html
Thanks, I'll check this out.
> These are not legacy documents, correct? You should use the following
> for new pages:
>
> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
> "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
These are indeed new documents, but I'm still indoubt whether or not Strict
is beneficial to my site. I've already asked a similar question, and Chris
Beall explained to me what the differences were between Transitional and
Strict.
But I'd like to know why I should use Strict - my main reason for validating
the site is to be sure that as much people as possible can see the site
correctly, and to know that my pages are written correct.
What would be the added benefit of using Strict? Transitional appears to
offer more freedom... Also, if I were to choose strict, why not jump to
xhtml? Or is this something entirely different?
>
> In fact, I can't get the w3 validator ( http://validator.w3.org/ ) to
> work with your page. It returns:
>
> <quote>
> I got the following unexpected response when trying to retrieve
> <http://jcsnippets.atspace.com/index.html>:
>
> 500 Can't connect to jcsnippets.atspace.com:80 (Bad hostname
> 'jcsnippets.atspace.com')
> </quote>
Very strange. I posted this message only five minutes after validating that
same page - but the next day (at work) I received the exact same error you
received, even though the site was still up and running. I don't know why,
but this should not happen, of course.
>
> I don't see them; they are blocked by my HOSTS file.
May I ask what you see in exchange? I assume you just get the background
colour instead.
bring[color=darkred]
it[color=darkred]
>
> If these banner ads are of a common size, my browser will not render
> them.
I've already replied to saz that the banners will disappear, but I'm
interested to know why your browser doesn't render them - is there a setting
of some sorts for this?
the[color=darkred]
on[color=darkred]
a[color=darkred]
stuff[color=darkred]
>
> Counters make you look like an amateur. And most free hosts don't have
> much more than raw logs, if that.
The counter and logger tool will be replaced by a non-visual aid as long as
I don't have another host.
Thanks for your advice!
Best regards,
JC
--
http://jcsnippets.atspace.com/
a collection of source code, tips and tricks
| |
|
|
| Beauregard T. Shagnasty 2006-03-05, 6:18 pm |
| jcsnippets.atspace.com wrote:
> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> wrote in message
> news:U2NNf.8104$J02.6697@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> <snip>
>
> Thanks, I'll check this out.
>
>
> These are indeed new documents, but I'm still indoubt whether or not
> Strict is beneficial to my site. I've already asked a similar
> question, and Chris Beall explained to me what the differences were
> between Transitional and Strict.
Yes, I saw that he did.
> But I'd like to know why I should use Strict - my main reason for
> validating the site is to be sure that as much people as possible can
> see the site correctly, and to know that my pages are written
> correct.
Transitional is for ... transitioning ... old documents to HTML 4.01. It
means you can leave old legacy presentational code in the document, and
still validate. FWIW, which isn't much.
When creating brand new documents, you aren't supposed to put
presentational code in the HTML; it should all be in the CSS.
> What would be the added benefit of using Strict? Transitional appears
> to offer more freedom...
Freedom to use old legacy presentational HTML? Well, sure, if you want
to continue to code like it's 1996.
Things like <center> ... table widths ... cellpadding ...
> Also, if I were to choose strict, why not
> jump to xhtml? Or is this something entirely different?
Different matter. IE6 doesn't recognize properly-delivered XHTML.
>
> May I ask what you see in exchange? I assume you just get the
> background colour instead.
Empty space.
>
> I've already replied to saz that the banners will disappear, but I'm
> interested to know why your browser doesn't render them - is there a
> setting of some sorts for this?
I've added styles to my Firefox user CSS. See:
http://www.floppymoose.com/
[snip counter stuff]
Your CSS could use work as well. I notice that font-family is repeated
throughout. Once on body will suffice. That's the Cascade part of
Cascading Style Sheet.
Look for many postings on why to avoid Verdana, and why you should use
percentages instead of points (or pixels) for font-size as well.
--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer
|
|
|
| | Copyright 2003 - 2008 forum4designers.com Software forum Computer Hardware reviews |
|