| LED Digest 1905: The Mystery of the Missing Code |
|
|
|
================================================== 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 ================================================== List Moderator: Published by: Adam Audette LED Digest adam,led-digest.com http://www.led-digest.com ............................................... December 7, 2004 Issue #1905 ............................................... .....IN THIS DIGEST..... ====== NEW ====================== --== Lycos Anti-spam Screensaver ==-- ~ Philip Scriver "There is a new way to help [spam sites] go out of business by increasing their bandwidth charges!" --== Mysteriously Missing Code, Graphics ==-- ~ Lanell Grant "I've never seen anything like this!" ==== CONTINUING ================= --== Natural Search Results & Google Policy ==-- ~ Barry Morgan "I would love to discuss [this company's] unprecedented alliance with [Google]." ~ Shari Thurow "...if it seems too good to be true, it probably isn't true." --== New ICANN Transfer Policy ==-- ~ Deke Hammel "The policy changes do NOT threaten domain name owners." --== The PayPal vs Merchant Accounts Debate ==-- ~ Todd Sumrall "I just thought this would be a good time to see the other side of the coin..." ==== BILLBOARD =================== --== 2005 Internet Advertising Awards ==-- ~ Bill Rice --== Why Firefox? ==-- ~ Charles Oertel ======== NEW ==================================== From: Philip Scriver Subject: New Topic - Spamvertised Sites Christmas Present I know from past conversation in this letter that you all feel, like me, irate about the amount of spam we all get. As always the stock answer has been DON'T purchase anything as it will make them go out of business. Well there is a new way to help them go out of business by increasing their bandwidth charges! Lycos is offering a free wallpaper that works on your computer down-time at requesting viewing those sites, but sending them no orders. I have been using it for about two weeks and am impressed with its potential if we get as many people as possible to assist. Go to http://www.makelovenotspam.com Save the screensaver and when your computer goes into idle just watch those spamvertised sites get their come-appearance. Call it a christmas present from us beleaguered legitimate businesses. Philip Scriver Explore Britain http://xplorebritain.com ------- new post - new topic ------- From: Lanell Grant Subject: New Topic - Missing code and graphics Hi LED'ers, Several days ago while enjoying a Thanksgiving visit in Texas, I had a unique experience that I hope someone out there can help explain. On my friends' computer with a fast cable Internet hook up, I routinely checked on several sites. Imagine my surprise when suddenly several medium size graphics were missing from two different unrelated pages, not the index page, on one site. Assuming that this was some sort of onetime error, I refreshed. It was the same. An examination of the code resident in the client computer revealed that lines of code were missing in several places. To make this really interesting, just the portion of code specifying the image, was missing. A related link, (now inactive) etc, was still there. I could discover no pattern to the missing graphics. Other virtually identical graphics and code were present and displayed in normal fashion. Next I went to our server. I anticipated finding missing code there. Such was not the case! The code on the server was just fine! Several phone calls to other locations confirmed that these pages were displaying properly elsewhere. I should note that I was on a P4 Dell PC... nothing unusual about it, or the IE XP browser... The next day as I left the condition persisted..? The cable system was still delivering the html with these edited lines of code? Can you help me solve this mystery? I've never seen anything like this ! Lanell Grant ===== CONTINUING ================================= From: Barry Morgan Subject: Paid natural > One of my clients had a telephone call from a SEO company, > who claimed that... Google is now allowing them preferential > positioning in the free listings from their clients. The cost - > only 400.00 UK set-up then 19.95 per month, which includes > a doorway site. > I've told my client that this was a lie as Google never > take money for free listing positioning. - Sarah Hayes, LED 1904 Sarah, You are correct in saying Google does not accept money for natural search results. Google REF: http://www.google.com/webmasters/seo.html If you could send me the companies information I would love to discuss their unprecedented alliance with them. Regards, Barry Morgan, Online Business Development Printa Systems, Inc. http://www.printa.com ------- new post - same topic ------- From: Shari Thurow Subject: Paid positions Hi all- This is in response to Sarah Hayes' post in LED #1904 regarding paid Google search engine positions. I understand that Sarah wants confirmation about this SEO company's claims that they spend so much ad money that they get preferential treatment in the natural results. Google clearly states on their own site, "Advertising with Google neither helps (nor hurts!) a site's rankings on Google" at http:www.google.com/webmasters/facts.html. I am a search engine marketer, but I will not make outrageous or false claims just to close a sale. I won't show a case study with "results not typical" in small type, as commonly seen on infomercials and ads that look like news articles. So when I read Sarah's post, it irritated me. It's search engine marketers like them who give our industry a bad name. All I can say about the search industry is that if it seems too good to be true, it probably isn't true. No one can guarantee top positions except in search engine advertising. No top positions are permanent. Instant link popularity means spam link farm. And so on and so forth. In light of this interesting question, LEDers might want to read this interesting search engine occurrence: http://www.isedb.com/news/article/1056 Best wishes, Shari Thurow, Webmaster/Marketing Director ~ See us at the Search Engine Marketing Road Show http://www.semroadshow.com/ --------- new post - new topic --------- From: Deke Hammel Subject: Domain transfers > ... the new ICANN Transfer Policy [states that] if you > have a domain name, and you don't lock it someone > could transfer it without your approval! - Dejan Bizinger, LED 1902 The policy changes do NOT threaten domain name owners. The gaining registrar MUST obtain consent from the administrative contact using a Standardized Form of Authorization. What is threatened is the ability of registrars and their affiliates to keep you from switching registrars. The new ICANN policy is at: http://www.icann.org/transfers/policy-12jul04.htm Deke Hammel domain750.com ------- new post - new topic ------- From: Todd Sumrall Subject: PayPal vs other Hello Ledr's, Some things that should be considered when deciding on using a 3rd-party processor like PayPal or obtaining your own merchant account is the UNSEEN COST using a 3rd-party actually creates for your bottom line. It really boils down to this statement: "Whose Taking Care of Your Customers? You or Them?" With a 3rd-party processor you lose a big element of customer service as well as recognition or branding. Often, though the merchant may not know it, you lose the lifetime value of a customer as well when you process transactions some other way than with your own merchant account. From the very first transaction you process through a 3rd-party payment processing account, you'll experience problems that cost you way more than your own merchant account would. Let me bullet some things you should consider when using a 3rd-party processor 1) You business name and phone number does not appear on your customer's credit card statement. The 3rd-party's name and maybe their number does. What is the cost to you with this setup? ** You'll lose customers. Confusion and frustration your customer may experience when they cannot associate the purchase with the company. This can lead to the following costly problems: 1a) Chargeback or refunds that could have been avoided simply seeing your business name, or possibly calling you first before, calling their credit card issuing bank. 1b) Poor customer service from the 3rd-party processor. They do not know your products and/or services like you do. They cannot answer your customers questions for you. They are overworked all day dealing with confused customers and the image of your company is not put in good light to say the least. Only name or possibly phone number your customer sees on their statement is that of the 3rd-party processor. There is no one else to contact at this critical moment. 1c) Frustrated customers do not return to buy again. This is especially true if they don't know who you are to start with! So unless your one time widget sale was your goal, there is much money being lost when you cannot tap into the lifetime value of a customer. 1d) What about name recognition? Your business name isn't on your customer's statement. That's for sure. The 3rd-party gets the image and branding and you get nothing. 1e) Building customer loyalty surely will not happen as well. Of course much of the above can be prevented simply by having and using your own merchant account. **While the above are the main things I believe impact a merchants bottom line, there is even a more sinister cloud. Recently a well known 3rd-party processor simply stopped paying their merchants what was owed them. The reason was, they could not get access to the money themselves. Many thousands of merchants lives and businesses were turned upside down literally overnight. Two major problems come to light here: 1- Did you know that you probably don't or won't have a merchant agreement with your 3rd-party payment processing company? What recourse will you have if they quit paying you? There is no agreement that is signed in most cases. 2- Closely related would be; what happens if they go belly up? There is no FDIC insurance guaranteeing your transactions. Uncle Sam isn't going to bail them out. 3- 3rd-party processors are magnetic for every under the rock merchant you can think of. They can't get their own merchant because they were terminated, not legit, and a myriad of other things. So off to 3rd-party they go. 3rd-party processors attract the ones merchant account providers risk departments kicked off their system. So #2 above is a potential possibility. Both of these problems can be eliminated with your own merchant account. Contracts are required and your transactions are settled with an FDIC insured bank. So there is recourse for you should things go bad for whatever reason. Contract for tort and good ole Uncle Sam watching your back. Lastly, most 3rd-party processors charge higher fees than your own merchant account would. These are the unseen dollars that are lost every day by businesses using a 3rd-party processor. Unfortunately there is no way to put real numbers on this, but I think the picture painted would imply the number would not be small for those really trying to build a business. To me, if you are in business for the long haul like most of us are, using a 3rd-party processor simply does not make sense. When you think about it, fixed monthly fees for your own merchant account typically are right up there with what you pay in fixed monthly fees for your cell phone. They are not that expensive. They are a sound investment into your company. I just thought this would be a good time to see the other side of the coin, that some supposed ecom experts fail to point out! Sincerely, Todd Sumrall Merchant Accounts totalprocessing.net ==== BILLBOARD =================================== From: Bill Rice Subject: Internet Advertising Awards For anyone how is interested, the 2005 Internet Advertising Awards are now accepting entries. The IAC Awards are the first and only industry-based advertising award competition dedicated exclusively to online advertising. For those who have participated in the past, there has been a number of changes to to the competition format including an increase in the number of industry categories and an upgraded trophy for the winners. Also there will be a best of show winner selected for each of the advertising medium categories (page-based ad, email-based ad, online newsletter, interactive application and microsite / landing page). The deadline for entry is January 31, 2005 and complete information can be found on the award website at www.iacaward.org Bill Rice Web Marketing Association ------- new post - new topic -------- From: Charles Oertel Subject: Firefox Mark Whitman (LED 1903) writes that developers should code only for IE because it is the most popular browser, and contends that "if developers don't take the time to make web sites compatible with all browsers that shifts the burden of compatibility back to the browser maker". "if websites don't look good in Firefox ...Firefox could and would make compatibility happen if necessary" Talk about losing the plot Mark. You call IE "popular" when in reality it is just the default by default - if people had an informed choice they would probably not choose IE. Then you suggest that the Mozilla crowd should build into FireFox all the bugs, non-conformances and just plain broken code that plagues IE? How is that going to force anybody to comply with a set of standards that have already been drafted and agreed upon, but are being ignored by Microsoft? All you are doing is endorsing Microsoft's devil-may-care attitude towards our internet security and internet standards. If past behaviour is anything to go by, Microsoft is likely to wait until their competitors support their broken system, and then they will change everything and pull the rug out from under them. If web developers want to take the lead, they should be building sites that exploit the standards and technologies like PNG that make their lives and websites better. When users are faced with OK sites on IE but _stunning_ sites on FireFox they will vote with their feet and show the browser manufacturers what they want. I used to eschew the notion of saying "this site best viewed with...", but have taken to using it again, because a standards-compliant browser is just so much better than IE (and generally more secure). regards Charles Oertel FineBushPeople.net ------------------------------------------------------- The LED Digest is sponsored by pair Networks: pair.com for Hosting | pairNIC.com for Domains Copyright 1995-2004 Adam Audette. All Rights Reserved. ----------------------------------------------------------------- "...I think animal testing is a terrible idea; they get all nervous and give the wrong answers." - anon. [thanks to Charles Oertel] |
