| LED Digest 1865: Shopping Cart Headaches |
|
|
|
================================================== The LED Digest Moderated Discussion List "Effective Online Advertising, Since 1997" pair Networks: The LED's Web Host Hosting and Domain Reg. from a Trusted Leader pair.com for Hosting | pairNIC.com for Domains ================================================== Guest Moderator: Published by: Veronica Yuill LED Digest post,led-digest.com http://www.led-digest.com ................................................ Septmember 7, 2004 Issue #1865 ................................................ .....IN THIS DIGEST..... ===== NEW ======================= --== Shopping Cart Code -- Advice Needed ==-- ~ Tom Anson "Are scripts for shopping carts unique to the system, or would any good code (of the right sort) work?..." ==== CONTINUING ================= --== Email Autoresponders ==-- ~ Martha Retallick "Another solution to the autoresponder problem..." ~ Dave Starr "SMTP was never designed to do what many of today's applications ask it to do..." ~ Michael Martinez "No one, not a government agency or even the COBOL design committee, can create an open standard..." --== Is Microsoft Crawling My Site? ==-- ~ T. Powell "Someone was hitting our server at the rate of 20,000 pings per second." --== Alternative Browsers ==-- ~ Kathy Wilson Anderson "I start my website designs using what the majority of people use and then test on the less popular..." --== The Future of SEO ==-- ~ Dirk Johnson "This "quick and dirty" network method of getting links is a very good way to get penalized..." ===== NEW ================================= From: Tom Anson Subject: Shopping Cart Code -- Advice Needed Hi LEDers, I have a question about coding for a shopping cart, and hope someone among you can help. For the last four years, I've been using EZ-Net Tools (from ICServ) for my website. They were a great way for me to get started with my website, and I like the integration of everything; but I've learned enough with this forum that I'm starting to outgrow the Tools. I've been reworking my site(s) in Dreamweaver MX 2004; and this past weekend, I tried my first shot at building a page with an order button/shopping cart. I've gotten it to work (took all day), but when I try to validate the code (in Dreamweaver -- I'm not brave enough for the W3C validation), I get a long list of code problems. Most of them are within the shopping cart script. I have a lot more questions than ideas on what to try. All I know is that I'd like to stay within the Tools for now (for hosting), but I'd like to be able to tweak things so that my pages are XHTML-compliant, and lose all the extra junk in the code. For that, I need some help. I have no idea of where to look for answers because I'm not even sure what it is I'm talking about here (the down side of the Tools). I guess what I'm looking for are some answers -- and maybe a suggestion of where else to look for more. Basically, at http://www.therapeutic-grade.com/cgi-bin/ez- catalog/cat_display.cgi?0X367200 and http://www.therapeutic-grade.com/cgi-bin/ez- catalog/cat_display.cgi?0X367200 is the code for the Essential Oils Desk Reference shopping cart. I've built a page with (pretty much) just the code in question here: http://www.health-essentials.info/shopping-cart-questions.html. I want to put the price, quantity and "Add to Cart" button in the page http://www.health-essentials.info/resources/desk-ref.html (If anyone can suggest a better way to do it than I have here, I'd love to hear about it.) I know this sounds dumb, but what kind of script is this? Are scripts for shopping carts unique to the system, or would any good code (of the right sort) work? If I can use my own script here, where should I go to find good information about it, and what kind of script is this???? If anyone would like to take this and basically weed out the garbage and add in what it needed to W3C compliance, that would be great. If you could take the time to explain what this stuff does, that would be wonderful (although just recommending a good reference would be great, too). In your reply, assume that I basically understand nothing. You wouldn't be too far from the truth. Thanks in advance. I look forward to hearing from you. Tom Anson Anson Aromatic Essentials ===== CONTINUING ================================= From: Martha Retallick Subject: Autoresponders Another solution to the autoresponder problem, which I didn't mention in my previous post, is to use Master Form from Willmaster.com. Details at: http://willmaster.com/master/formV3/ This is a good choice if you're asking people to fill out a form on your website, and you'd like to have some e-mail acknowledgement sent right after they've submitted their information. You can also use Master Form to send fancier stuff than just plain- text e-mail. I use it to enable people to send e-cards (HTML e-mails, actually) that include case studies of my postcard marketing efforts. Take this "super-simple" e-card sending system for a spin at: http://www.passionatepostcarder.com/case-studies.html Best part of Master Form is how much you get for just $49.00. I'm still discovering the many capabilities of this software. Martha Retallick, "The Passionate Postcarder" http://www.PostcardMarketingSecrets.com ------- new post - same topic ------- From: Dave Starr Subject: Autoresponders Veronica's cautions about proprietary solutions are valid and worthy of serious consideration. However, as I brought up here just a few weeks ago, suggesting people look harder at RSS, continually trying to build business by fighting the faults of the SMTP quagmire seems to me to be a losing battle. SMTP was never designed to do what many of today's applications ask it to do and it will not get better, it will only get worse as spam and unscrupulous mailers and careless and even unscrupulous blacklisters grow. I have not tested Ez-Feeds and have no connection to it whatsoever, but the idea and its implementation seem a giant step in the right direction. A lot of mail services still using SMTP use very proprietary methods also, each mail out customer has to weigh alternatives. Flogging the dead horse of SMTP, no matter how hard the flogging won't get it back in front of the mass mail wagon ... the time for an alternative horse is here. David W. Starr Customer Solutions SatViz Incorporated www.SatViz.com [Moderator comment] I totally agree with Dave that SMTP was designed for a kinder, gentler age when everyone on the Internet trusted each other. Sadly, this is no longer the case. You might be interested in this article which I happened to come across the other day, which explains why the search for a solution is not so simple -- and also ties in nicely with Michael Martinez's post below. I think Michael and I will have to agree to differ on our definitions of proprietary and open standards ;-) Food for thought: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3624798.stm ~ Veronica ------- new post - same topic ------- From: Michael Martinez Subject: Autoresponders In LED Digest 1864, Veronica wrote: >> Sorry Michael, but I have to take issue with your claim that "This type of proprietary system is precisely how the Internet was built and continues to evolve ... virtually all the major pieces of Internet technology started out as proprietary implementations". The Internet originated as a US government-funded project. TCP/IP, the protocol that underlies everything on the Internet, is a non-proprietary open standard.<< TCP/IP, when it was developed in 1972, was very much a proprietary protocol (and the fact it was funded by the US government doesn't change the fact that it was proprietary -- at the time, only DARPA computer systems had access to it). Vinton Cerf and Robert Kahn first published the specification in a paper titled "A Protocol for Packet Network Interconnection" in 1974. The specification was later sub- divided into two protocols, but they were proprietary in the sense that no computer systems were designed around them for years. The DOD officially adopted the technology in 1978 and it was incorporated into ARPANET in 1983 -- all of which was, at that time, still a PROPRIETARY environment. Open standards such as FTP, SMTP, TCP/IP, etc. all came out of proprietary development. Even Linux was a proprietary when Linus Torvalds first developed it. It became an open standard later. GNU originated with user dissatisfaction over AT&T's control of UNIX. >> When Tim Berners-Lee invented the Web in 1989, he was working for public research organisation CERN in Geneva -- his idea was to find a way of providing CERN with a "collective memory", making it easy to retrieve documents wherever they were.<< And there were no systems which took advantage of the technology at first. Furthermore, the first Web browser his very own "WorldWideWeb" (renamed Nexus), only ran on NeXT computers (a very proprietary environment). Everything, and I mean absolutely EVERYTHING that goes into the Internet started out as a proprietary THING in someone's hat. Eventually, these tools were adopted by numerous software vendors, and only then became open standards. No one, not a government agency or even the COBOL design committee, can create an open standard. That violates the meaning of the expression. An open standard is freely adopted from proprietary innovation, not mandated by a single authority. You create an innovation and put it out for people to evaluate. If enough people like it and adopt it, it becomes an open standard. It may evolve or spawn other ideas, but it can only start out as a proprietary idea. Michael Martinez http://www.michael-martinez.com/ ------- new post - new topic ------- From: T. Powell Subject: Is Microsoft Crawling My Site? Sarah Hayes wrote: >>I'm having a big problem with what I think is Microsoft crawling my site continuously. [...] The IP address in question is 65.54.188.65, which I am told belongs to Microsoft, but is not related to dial-ups. This IP address can hold sometime 10 sessions at the same time, adding items to its carts.<< Sarah, The IP addresses you see probably do not belong to the culprit but are spoofs. You could very well be experiencing what our company went through for most of this summer. Our main web site sends customers to an alternate site where the shopping cart resides. Beginning in May of this year we started noticing declined credit card transactions, all of them with extremely high dollar amounts. Normally our customers spend between $30.00 and $150.00 on items specific to our industry. The "declined transactions" hitting our secure site were thousands of dollars above average and most had the same customer name. What we found was that someone was hitting our server at the rate of 20,000 pings per second. They were using automated software to randomly generate possible credit card numbers, expiration dates and CVV2 codes. At one point we were getting at least 250 attempted transactions per hour, sometimes many more. Attempts to block an IP address or blocks of IP addresses were futile. The criminal not only used software to generate credit card numbers but was spoofing IP addresses. One of the IP addresses being used belonged to our ISP! Our customers' personal information was never in danger but we could not allow the culprit to use our shopping cart to hijack credit card numbers. (Credit card processing companies also frown on such activities!) Our shopping cart was shut down while technical people came up with a solid fix. The only thing that saved our internet business was to implement a human validator, requiring each individual transaction to enter a 6 digit code before entering secure pages. While technical support was implementing the human validator, I researced the bogus names being used in the transactions. Most of the names originated from what are known as "Nigerian gangsters." All information was given to the authorities but the culprits were never caught. This entire experience costs us dearly (over $20,000.00) in down time. Simply put, using something such as a human validator will put a stop to those who hide behind spoof IP addresses, spoof e-mails and use software to invade your site. Good luck! T. Powell Professional Pest Control Products www.pestproducts.com ------- new post - new topic ------- From: Kathy Wilson Anderson Subject: Alternative Browsers John Barrick said in his post... "Never, and I mean it folks, never start your web site viewing in IE unless that is the only crowd you are interested in." Actually, yes, this IS the crowd I'm interested in. IE users comprise approximately 90% of the internet users, according to the statistics for my client's websites. I start my website designs using what the majority of people use and then test on the less popular browsers, monitors, and operating systems. If popularity of any one of these factors falls below 5%, they are off my radar screen and I don't waste my time with them, unless they are a specific market that my client is targeting. Thanks, John, for the link you provided to the article about coding. However, the text was too small to read using my monitor, 17" with the default resolution of 800x600 which is what about 50% of the internet users are still viewing websites with, and IE6, which is what about 70% are using for a browser. Love, Kathy Wilson Anderson http://www.under-one-roof.net Life Purpose Coaching ~ Website Solutions ~ Vibrational Healing ------- new post - new topic ------- Subject: The Future of SEO From: Dirk Johnson Jill Whalen wrote: "If these website owners are trading links within their directories, don't the directories end up pretty much being carbon copies of each other? How do you keep this from happening using your strategy, or is it not a problem?" Thanks for the question Jill. Your bring up a legitimate issue that I have considered in-depth. What we need to do here is to separate the hypothetical from the reality. Hypothetically, I suppose that it is possible to arrive at the condition that you mention. That would take full cooperation of most all of the participants, across the entire Web. More on this in a bit. Actually, as you know, that condition ("carbon copies of links", or close to it) does already exist in microcosm, within some of the "link networks". This is where every participant in the network puts the exact same "circle" of links on their site. Every participant in these networks links to every other site in the network, and often, to nobody else. To better define it, I call them "inward-looking, exclusive link networks". Some people call them "link farms", but that term has a different meaning to different people, and I am not going to even try to play into that game of semantics. Using the term network is much more descriptive. This "quick and dirty" network method of getting links is also well- known as a very good way to get penalized by a search engine. It is easy for a search engine to see the participants, as well as the exclusive, circular nature of it, combined with a very high degree of reciprocity. I have seen these penalties take hold, and when participation in the network ceases, I have seen sites recover from it. I have also seen sites "get away with it" for long periods of time, but those sites that get away with it also seem to offset the effect of the link network on their own sites by various means of "dilution". It's risky way to live. I don't advise it. But I think Jill was not speaking to a defined "network" like these, and was referring to general, open linking among independent sites, and if doing that ever might result in a large, unintended network. I just needed to lay some groundwork for this discussion. Among sites that are actively pursuing legitimate directory link opportunities and that are not in a "network" but are widely dispersed on the Web, there always will be (and always has been) a certain level of inevitable "convergence". After all, sites that offer to link within a specific realm of interest are going to congregate to some degree. But it's also a very big world, and every site runs their own link directory in their own way. They choose the categories, link partners, and the depth or breadth of their effort at their own discretion. So, as much as there is convergence, there is also "diffusion". Site A links to site B and D, B to C and A, C to B but not to A or D, and D also links to E, F and G. And on and on. I would say that this diffusion effect is far more dominant than convergence, and things will most likely stay that way. To achieve anything resembling broad convergence means that most sites would have to pursue links with considerable zeal. I don't see this. The number of sites that approach reciprocal linking as a determined, long-term branding effort are actually quite limited and unique in their approach. I'll explain. While the cost of reciprocal linking can be small compared with an active, competitive pay-per-click keyword campaign, it takes a formidable level of data management skill and attention to detail to manage a large link campaign. Managing the workload itself becomes much more of a barrier than the actual cost. The first few links can be earned with minimal effort, and minimal data coordination. But each subsequent link earned becomes more difficult than the last, due to the data management challenges. Add to that the reality that it becomes ever more difficult to find and qualify new link opportunities, against what has already been reviewed and pursued. So, in practice, most "in-house" link campaigns start out with a flurry of activity, achieve a certain level of success, and then become far less intense in scope, as the unforeseen management challenges compound and begin to expose themselves. At that point, most new links earned come from the requests coming in, rather than from those going out. Jill, I think that the risk of convergence was actually greater in the days when people linked for the sake of linking, instead of for the sake of the search engines. There were far fewer linking opportunities, so there was a lot more convergence. These days, linking opportunities are proliferating. Even the most determined among us can't uncover all of them, which adds substantially to the diffusion factor. At this point in time, given the existing protocol and practices, I see convergence as an interesting theory, but not reflective of reality. Diffusion seems to be the far more dominant result at this time. Now, I realize that I have nothing but logic, derived from my own experience, to back all of this up. People are welcome to disagree, and I am sure they will. My best advice to all is to link as if you are building a legitimate link directory for your site visitors, with reciprocity not being the sole condition of inclusion. This advances diffusion on your own site, and across the web. It represents traditional, legitimate linking practices, and thus it is extremely hard to define as being contrived, both by human inspection, and by algorithmic analysis. I would also like to quickly address and agree with John Barendrecht's observation that emailed link requests resulting from robot crawls are a nuisance. All of the sites for which I manage links have an online form for submitting legitimate link requests, and we also prefer to submit to the submission forms provided by other sites. It takes more time to submit to a form, but it distinguishes the request. Best regards, Dirk Johnson - owner Read "The Benefits of Reciprocal Linking - A Baker's Dozen Points to Ponder" LinkStrategy.com http://www.linkstrategy.com ------------------------------------------------------- The LED Digest is sponsored by pair Networks: pair.com for Hosting | pairNIC.com for Domains Copyright 1995-2004 Adam Audette. All Rights Reserved. ----------------------------------------------------------------- "Live not as though there were a thousand years ahead of you. Fate is at your elbow; make yourself good while life and power are still yours." - Marcus Aurelius |
