Re: Google sitemaps ... food for thought?

#1

Stacey wrote:

Quote:

Justin like your web design. Just a little error I found in some spelling as
I skimmed through it. At the bottom where you speak about if someone wants
to help you misspelled other - you have "outher". Anyway, real nice layout!

thanks

#2

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 10:58:25 -0600, Justin Koivisto <justin (AT) koivi (DOT) com>
wrote:

Quote:

Stacey wrote:

Justin like your web design. Just a little error I found in some spelling as
I skimmed through it. At the bottom where you speak about if someone wants
to help you misspelled other - you have "outher". Anyway, real nice layout!

thanks

Hi Justin
Further to what Stacey said, your site looks different in firefox than
it does in IE - Mainly where you have header tags.

Also, you may be violating googles TOS with "Or you could simply visit
some of the advertizer sites you can find scattered throughout!"
Just be careful.

plh
Paul

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

#3

"Paul" <webmaster (AT) houstoncrafts (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 10:58:25 -0600, Justin Koivisto <justin (AT) koivi (DOT) com
wrote:

Stacey wrote:

Justin like your web design. Just a little error I found in some
spelling as
I skimmed through it. At the bottom where you speak about if someone
wants
to help you misspelled other - you have "outher". Anyway, real nice
layout!

thanks

Hi Justin
Further to what Stacey said, your site looks different in firefox than
it does in IE - Mainly where you have header tags.

Not much difference that I can see. But with FF there are always small
differences. Which is why I like IE. Certain graphics look smoother in IE
and not FF.

Quote:

Also, you may be violating googles TOS with "Or you could simply visit
some of the advertizer sites you can find scattered throughout!"
Just be careful.

The Adsense TOS? I don't think so. It looks fine to me. I didn't see
anything wrong with it.

Stacey
--
Massage Therapy - http://massage-therapy-101.net
Valentine Gifts-
http://allgiftshop.net/occasion-gift...-day-gifts.htm
Flowers- http://allgiftshop.net/occasion-gift...ts-flowers.htm

#4

On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 00:16:03 +0100, "Stacey"
<Remove-the-Y-stacey (AT) staceyssimplestuff (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

"Paul" <webmaster (AT) houstoncrafts (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:lo9rr15uav5hl7mt474j2r40h3nhfvnjvf (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...
On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 10:58:25 -0600, Justin Koivisto <justin (AT) koivi (DOT) com
wrote:

Stacey wrote:

Justin like your web design. Just a little error I found in some
spelling as
I skimmed through it. At the bottom where you speak about if someone
wants
to help you misspelled other - you have "outher". Anyway, real nice
layout!

thanks

Hi Justin
Further to what Stacey said, your site looks different in firefox than
it does in IE - Mainly where you have header tags.

Not much difference that I can see. But with FF there are always small
differences. Which is why I like IE. Certain graphics look smoother in IE
and not FF.

Well, look at it in IE and then in Firefox.
Don't get me wrong, I know both IE and firefox see things differently,
and I am not picking holes. Just mentioning it.

Quote:

Also, you may be violating googles TOS with "Or you could simply visit
some of the advertizer sites you can find scattered throughout!"
Just be careful.

The Adsense TOS? I don't think so. It looks fine to me. I didn't see
anything wrong with it.

It depends on how google want to interpret what it is stating. It is
almost asking to click on the adverts, which I don't think you are
allowed. (Click fraud)
And I did say *may be*

I did a quick search and found this :
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=1363

Quote:

Stacey

plh
Paul

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

#5

On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 00:16:03 +0100, Stacey
<Remove-the-Y-stacey (AT) staceyssimplestuff (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

Further to what Stacey said, your site looks different in firefox than
it does in IE - Mainly where you have header tags.

Not much difference that I can see. But with FF there are always small
differences. Which is why I like IE. Certain graphics look smoother in IE
and not FF.

I would say the opposite - there are always small differences with IE.
Its rendering engine is full of bugs and is not able to display correctly
many things. When creating new pages I am often spending 50% of my time
just trying to find the way for the page to display correctly in IE.

Best,
Borek
--
http://www.chembuddy.com/?left=pH-ca...right=pH-scale
http://www.chembuddy.com/?left=pH-ca...=pH-definition

#6

"Paul" <webmaster (AT) houstoncrafts (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 00:16:03 +0100, "Stacey"
Remove-the-Y-stacey (AT) staceyssimplestuff (DOT) com> wrote:

"Paul" <webmaster (AT) houstoncrafts (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:lo9rr15uav5hl7mt474j2r40h3nhfvnjvf (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...
On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 10:58:25 -0600, Justin Koivisto <justin (AT) koivi (DOT) com
wrote:

Stacey wrote:

Justin like your web design. Just a little error I found in some
spelling as
I skimmed through it. At the bottom where you speak about if someone
wants
to help you misspelled other - you have "outher". Anyway, real nice
layout!

thanks

Hi Justin
Further to what Stacey said, your site looks different in firefox than
it does in IE - Mainly where you have header tags.

Not much difference that I can see. But with FF there are always small
differences. Which is why I like IE. Certain graphics look smoother in IE
and not FF.

Well, look at it in IE and then in Firefox.
Don't get me wrong, I know both IE and firefox see things differently,
and I am not picking holes. Just mentioning it.

I did.:-) To me I don't see much difference. It almost looks the same!

Quote:

Also, you may be violating googles TOS with "Or you could simply visit
some of the advertizer sites you can find scattered throughout!"
Just be careful.

The Adsense TOS? I don't think so. It looks fine to me. I didn't see
anything wrong with it.

It depends on how google want to interpret what it is stating. It is
almost asking to click on the adverts, which I don't think you are
allowed. (Click fraud)
And I did say *may be*

Where is he almost asking to click on them. I have only viewed the index
page.He is putting them in good view as Google suggests. I know what Adsense
states I have read the whole thing. I use Adsense so I want to make sure I
do the right thing.

<snip>

Stacey
--
Massage Therapy - http://massage-therapy-101.net
Valentine Gifts-
http://allgiftshop.net/occasion-gift...-day-gifts.htm
Flowers- http://allgiftshop.net/occasion-gift...ts-flowers.htm

#7

"Borek" <m.borkowski (AT) delete (DOT) chembuddy.these.com.parts> wrote

Quote:

On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 00:16:03 +0100, Stacey
Remove-the-Y-stacey (AT) staceyssimplestuff (DOT) com> wrote:

Further to what Stacey said, your site looks different in firefox than
it does in IE - Mainly where you have header tags.

Not much difference that I can see. But with FF there are always small
differences. Which is why I like IE. Certain graphics look smoother in IE
and not FF.

I would say the opposite - there are always small differences with IE.
Its rendering engine is full of bugs and is not able to display correctly
many things. When creating new pages I am often spending 50% of my time
just trying to find the way for the page to display correctly in IE.

Not me. I have made a website before that the graphics and font looked great
in IE then in FF looked like total crap. Jez will vouch for this one.

Stacey
--
Massage Therapy - http://massage-therapy-101.net
Valentine Gifts-
http://allgiftshop.net/occasion-gift...-day-gifts.htm
Flowers- http://allgiftshop.net/occasion-gift...ts-flowers.htm

#8

On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 01:27:18 +0100, "Stacey"
<Remove-the-Y-stacey (AT) staceyssimplestuff (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

"Paul" <webmaster (AT) houstoncrafts (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:6farr1ti68r188a5opi11ke209ek8up08i (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 00:16:03 +0100, "Stacey"
Remove-the-Y-stacey (AT) staceyssimplestuff (DOT) com> wrote:

"Paul" <webmaster (AT) houstoncrafts (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:lo9rr15uav5hl7mt474j2r40h3nhfvnjvf (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...
On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 10:58:25 -0600, Justin Koivisto <justin (AT) koivi (DOT) com

<snip>

Quote:

Well, look at it in IE and then in Firefox.
Don't get me wrong, I know both IE and firefox see things differently,
and I am not picking holes. Just mentioning it.

I did.:-) To me I don't see much difference. It almost looks the same!

We are looking at the same site, yes ? http://koivi.com

Quote:

Also, you may be violating googles TOS with "Or you could simply visit
some of the advertizer sites you can find scattered throughout!"
Just be careful.

The Adsense TOS? I don't think so. It looks fine to me. I didn't see
anything wrong with it.

It depends on how google want to interpret what it is stating. It is
almost asking to click on the adverts, which I don't think you are
allowed. (Click fraud)
And I did say *may be*

Where is he almost asking to click on them. I have only viewed the index
page.

So did I - If we are talking about the same site. the URL in the sig
was the only URL I saw.

His "Or you could simply visit some of the advertizer sites you can
find scattered throughout! " is directly above some google adverts.

Quote:

He is putting them in good view as Google suggests. I know what Adsense
states I have read the whole thing. I use Adsense so I want to make sure I
do the right thing.

snip

Stacey

plh
Paul

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

#9

"Paul" <webmaster (AT) houstoncrafts (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 01:27:18 +0100, "Stacey"
Remove-the-Y-stacey (AT) staceyssimplestuff (DOT) com> wrote:
snip

Quote:

I did.:-) To me I don't see much difference. It almost looks the same!

We are looking at the same site, yes ? http://koivi.com

Yes we are.:-)

<snip>

Quote:

His "Or you could simply visit some of the advertizer sites you can
find scattered throughout! " is directly above some google adverts.

Oh, that I missed thtt. Yeah that could be an issue. Of course he does have
other adverts on there.:-)

Stacey

#10

On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 01:29:25 +0100, "Stacey"
<Remove-the-Y-stacey (AT) staceyssimplestuff (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

"Borek" <m.borkowski (AT) delete (DOT) chembuddy.these.com.parts> wrote in message
news

p.s2xifaa826l578 (AT) borek (DOT) ..
On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 00:16:03 +0100, Stacey
Remove-the-Y-stacey (AT) staceyssimplestuff (DOT) com> wrote:

Further to what Stacey said, your site looks different in firefox than
it does in IE - Mainly where you have header tags.

Not much difference that I can see. But with FF there are always small
differences. Which is why I like IE. Certain graphics look smoother in IE
and not FF.

I would say the opposite - there are always small differences with IE.
Its rendering engine is full of bugs and is not able to display correctly
many things. When creating new pages I am often spending 50% of my time
just trying to find the way for the page to display correctly in IE.

Not me. I have made a website before that the graphics and font looked great
in IE then in FF looked like total crap. Jez will vouch for this one.

Stacey

I find that it works in IE more than it does in FF.
Then you have to use box model hacks etc.

plh
Paul

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----