| LED Digest 2129: Tracking Software |
|
|
|
================================================== 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 .............................................. March 31, 2006 Issue #2129 .............................................. .....IN THIS DIGEST..... ======= NEW ==================== --== Good Tracking Software ==-- ~ Dean Wright "I am having a hard time choosing a tracking software package." ==== CONTINUING ================= --== Protecting Images ==-- ~ Amy D. Moore "...most image thieves are just plain incompetent." ~ Claudiu Spulber "...the CSS protection in the form you used is not enough." ~ Bev Hanna "...place [images] in the background of a table cell, with a blank gif over top." --== Duplicate Content ==-- ~ Lorelle Smith "I ran into some trouble a few years ago with one of my sites." --== To Bounce or Not To Bounce ==-- ~ Chris Nielsen "The solution that I have been using is a combination of Spam Assassin..." ~ Nancy Cardinali "I am confused on this point..." ==== BILLBOARD =================== --== Email Address Books on Yahoo ==-- ~ Carol Goodwater =========== NEW ================================== From: Dean Wright Subject: Good Tracking Software I am having a hard time choosing a tracking software package. There seems to be two methods. One uses the access logs and the other methods requires pasting HTML on the confirmation page. There apparently are pros and cons on both systems. Would like to hear from the readers which is best, especially from the standpoint of easy to use. Thanks Dean Wright mailordman, aol.com ======== CONTINUING =============================== From: Amy D. Moore Subject: CSS "protection" of images > Using CSS, I placed the logo on a web page. When the > client tried to print the page, the logo did not print... the > logo is not really sitting on the page we view, but is one > layer deeper, therefore unavailable to the casual thief. - Nancy Cardinali, LED 2128 Actually, your logo is a background element ("one layer deeper") which is why, with a browser set to default settings, it will not print. Even before CSS, designers used background element images which clients might like to print. All you have to do is go into your browser's settings (for IE: Tools>Internet Options>Advanced Tab>Printing or for FireFox: File>Page Setup>Format & Options Tab) and make sure the "Print Background" button is checked. I generally keep it off because it uses a lot of ink and most desirably printed content is not in the background (a fact designers new to CSS should be sure to keep in mind). However, when trying to print a page for design purposes, this is a handy thing to know. As for picture theft, it depends on the nature of the theft. If bandwidth is a problem (many people steal my pictures from my server for use on their MySpace accounts), you can make a habit of occasionally changing the picture with a different image. You still control what image is displayed. I have a stock picture of a single-finger salute that has the text "Don't steal pictures" on it which I use. However, most image theives are just plain incompetent. One of the simplest diversions is to slice your picture. On most free blogging accounts they don't have the design flexibility to reassemble it. I have also, occaisionally, in egregious theft cases, made banner ads for some erotic sites I host and swapped those out. I usually warn people before I do that, but it is my effort of last resort for commercial bandwidth image theives. For thefts not of bandwidth concern, watermarking is always the best choice. It is also an excellent opportunity to leverage theft into a marketing tool. I'd caution designers against using either background image elements or the superimposition of transparent images over other images using CSS as a method to prevent image theft. If images are a component of the sales or marketing method of the site, the users of the site might be detered when they cannot see those images in a printout. Especially when I'm shopping and buying, the ability to print pages is critical to my consumer experience and most web users are unfamiliar with the process of modifying their print options. Amy D. Moore http://internetsupportservice.com Media, Database, and Internet Solutions since 1996 -------- new post - same topic --------- From: Claudiu Spulber Subject: Image theft Nancy, the CSS protection in the form you used is not enough. Being a background image, in Internet Explorer you can right click and select Save Background As to get the logo. There is a technique where you can add a transparent gif on top of that, to prevent the background saving. Here is a link with more details: http://www.htmlite.com/faq010.php Regards, Claudiu Spulber http://www.backup4all.com// http://www.novapdf.com// -------- new post - same topic --------- From: Bev Hanna Subject: Image theft My favourite way to protect images is to place them in the background of a table cell, with a blank gif over top. The gif has an alt-tag that describes the image underneath. Lately, I've been creating a line of text with my copyright information on the otherwise blank gif. If someone tries to screen-grab or print it, the copyright info is on top, and even if someone right-clicks it, all they'll get is the copyright gif and not the image. Bev Hanna, S.C.A. http://www.bevhanna.com -------- new post - new topic --------- From: Lorelle Smith Subject: Duplicate content > Registrars like GoDaddy allow you > to setup permanent redirects. - Reg Charie, LED 2127 Not exactly true. A permanent redirect is a 301. GoDaddy's forwarded domains report as a 302: a temporary redirect. > You can even "mask" the redirect so that > people see the old domain name, not the new. This could lead to unwanted results. I ran into some trouble a few years ago with one of my sites. There is a common misspelling so naturally I registered that domain as well and had my web host "park" it on top of the main domain. Parking also "masks" the domain name in the address bar. There are two ways the major search engines like to find out about a new site: by following a link, or by spying on users who have downloaded the engine's toolbar. So Google either found a misspelled link somewhere or someone with G's toolbar misspelled the domain when typing it. Google then indexed every page the misspeller visited -- under the misspelled domain name instead of the correct name! Naturally, this presents a fractured view of the site. Google didn't know I had tons of great content on ONE site, because it saw this as TWO separate sites. Nowadays we all know that "content is king" so that was not a good thing. To solve the problem, I used GoDaddy forwarding without masking. That's how I found out it gives a 302 instead of a 301. It hasn't hurt it any, though; today there are zero pages indexed in Google under the wrong name. I do have to check periodically to be sure other sites are linking to the correct version of the name. (I don't worry about people with an engine's toolbar visiting under the misspelled name, because the engines no longer seem to index sites that don't have at least one other site linking to them.) Lorelle Smith, SEO/Internet Marketing Consultant http://www.keywordsmith.com -------- new post - new topic -------- From: Chris Nielsen Subject: Bouncing While I try to "hide" my email when I can, I've been using the same primary email address, This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it ever since I registered the domain in 1999. There are many places around the web where the address was listed before we thought too much about protecting it from spammers. While I admit that my spam problem did become almost unmanageable at one point, I was able to retain this same email address today and not abandon it to the spammers. The solution that I have been using is a combination of SPAM ASSASSIN that comes with all my many hosting accounts. While I have 30+ domains that all feed my main account or sub-accounts at NielsenTech, SpamAssasin filters and flags most of what comes in and prepends "SPAM_" to the subjects. I then use Outlook to filter these into a folder. I check this during the day and can easily delete the junk since I sort it on subject and the spam is clearly indicated. It helps actually, that I get quite a bit because I can see repeating patterns of subjects. I delete 99% of these unless something really nasty comes in, then I react to it with the next line of defense. The other part of what I do is to report anything that gets through the filters and appears in my inbox to SPAMCOP.net. This does take a minute per spam, but I feel it's the reason my daily servings of spam is not too bad. And yes, I still do report business and other emails where people include their real information if it's clear that they have not visited my site and are sending "form letter" emails. I think people have to take a stand to protect their personal communication channels, email, telephone, door-to-door sales people, etc. and not put up with intrusions where there is a "cost" to us and not to the sender. Postal mail is fine since the sender pays and I can review and respond as I wish, when I wish. Email could be considered the same, except that the sender does not pay and therefore there are no limits which creates a problem for others. Of course direct marketers have their viewpoints, but this is mine. I think when marketers finally get the idea that they can pay people for their attention that some balance will happen. Anyone that wants to pay to send me mail can do so right away and I promise I will not report them. For the right amount I may even open and read it... Thanks, Chris Nielsen www.business-mailing-list-marketing.com -------- new post - same topic -------- From: Nancy Cardinali Subject: Email Addresses in HTML Code > And - sorry - once again we're having > a spam discussion with contributors whose > emails addresses are completely exposed > in their text or in the HTML code. - Michael Linehan, LED 2127 I am confused on this point. I have a mail form using cgi: ------------------ <.form method="post" action="/cgi-sys/formmail.pl"> <.input type="hidden" name="recipient" value=" This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it " /> <.input type="hidden" name="redirect" value=" http://www.haroldrmiller.com/thankyou.html" /> etc.. ------------------ When I asked previously, I was told the spiders would not be able to 'read' this email address, as they only 'see' what is actually on the page, not the code. It seems Michael is saying otherwise. Can anyone explain what is correct? Thanks Nancy Cardinali Action adventure novels based on private investigator's case files. www.haroldrmiller.com ==== BILLBOARD =================================== From: Carol Goodwater Subject: Email Address Book on Yahoo Account Recently, I needed a separate email address when I was trying to get rid of some unused household items, so I signed up for a Yahoo account. One of their screen pitches encouraged mail users to put all of their email address book entries into the handy-dandy address book Yahoo provides for free. Being somewhat suspicious by nature, I emailed Yahoo Customer Support asking if the address book was a secure address book and if they used the addresses in any way, shape, or form. Needless to say (but I'll say it anyway), they never replied. Does anyone know for certain (I know... dumb question) if they use these addresses? Warmest Regards, Carol A. Goodwater Web To Market Corp. Internet - Web Site Development http://www.webtomarket.com ------------------------------------------------------- The LED Digest is sponsored by pair Networks: pair.com for Hosting | pairNIC.com for Domains © Copyright 1995-2006 Orange Wheel, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our thoughts." - Bertrand Russell |
