How Do I See All That Is My Website? Because There's Stuff There I Didn't Put Up...

Hi, group. I have a small business and I've recently made my first
foray into webdesign. I'm keeping it simple and growing steadily in my
skill.

While I've shared my site with a few friends, I'm saving the real
debut for when I'm confident my site looks good.

I was shocked, though, yesterday when a friend with whom I had shared
my site with told me I had had 127 visits to my page. Not that I've
had 127 visits, but because he had this information.

Turns out (as I'm sure you guys already know), there's a page on my
site with this address:

http://mydomain.com/webalizer/index.htm

I'm paying a private company to host my site on their servers and I
designed it in frontpage and then uploaded my content (about 8 pages
total). I had no idea that anything else was on my site, let alone
something anyone could access.

I've since tried to access other sites' webalizer (out of
curiousity--to see if I was the "only one") and I'm successful about a
tenth of the time.

My question is this: where do I go to view a comprehensive list of
everything that makes up my site? Not just my content, but everything?

That said, webalizer is kinda cool. I just wish I knew how to make it
hidden.

Thanks.

com crumb wrote:

My question is this: where do I go to view a comprehensive list of
everything that makes up my site? Not just my content, but everything?

That said, webalizer is kinda cool. I just wish I knew how to make it
hidden.

FTP into the site, then browse the folders on the remote machine.

You can protect the webalizer directory by using .htaccess (some ISP control
panels allow you to set this up through a GUI).

HTH,

Pete.

--

Peter Connolly | Macromedia Certified Dreamweaver MX Developer
http://www.acutecomputing.co.uk
Derby
UK

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 07:30:54 -0800, com crumb wrote:

While I've shared my site with a few friends, I'm saving the real
debut for when I'm confident my site looks good.

I was shocked, though, yesterday when a friend with whom I had shared
my site with told me I had had 127 visits to my page. Not that I've
had 127 visits, but because he had this information.

Turns out (as I'm sure you guys already know), there's a page on my
site with this address:

http://mydomain.com/webalizer/index.htm

I'm paying a private company to host my site on their servers and I
designed it in frontpage and then uploaded my content (about 8 pages
total). I had no idea that anything else was on my site, let alone
something anyone could access.

This is going to sound dickish, but here goes anyways:

You have posted what appears to be a paradox. You are "saving the real
debut for when I'm confident my site looks good" but yet you "designed
it in frontpage".

In my experience, there is almost no way to make a FrantPage-designed site
look good. But that's just my two cents.

later...

--
-------------------------

Jeffrey Silverman |
jeffrey-AT-jhu-DOT-edu|
-------------------------

Jeffrey Silverman <jeffrey (AT) jhu (DOT) edu> wrote

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 07:30:54 -0800, com crumb wrote:

While I've shared my site with a few friends, I'm saving the real
debut for when I'm confident my site looks good.

I was shocked, though, yesterday when a friend with whom I had shared
my site with told me I had had 127 visits to my page. Not that I've
had 127 visits, but because he had this information.

Turns out (as I'm sure you guys already know), there's a page on my
site with this address:

http://mydomain.com/webalizer/index.htm

I'm paying a private company to host my site on their servers and I
designed it in frontpage and then uploaded my content (about 8 pages
total). I had no idea that anything else was on my site, let alone
something anyone could access.

This is going to sound dickish, but here goes anyways:

You have posted what appears to be a paradox. You are "saving the real
debut for when I'm confident my site looks good" but yet you "designed
it in frontpage".

In my experience, there is almost no way to make a FrantPage-designed site
look good. But that's just my two cents.

later...

Your reply to my question doesn't sound dickish at all. But I'd like
to know what you would suggest instead of FrontPage.

Thanks!

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:55:07 -0500, Jeffrey Silverman <jeffrey (AT) jhu (DOT) edu>
wrote:

In my experience, there is almost no way to make a FrantPage-designed site
look good. But that's just my two cents.

Well ... I'm prepared to admit the possibility that a Front Page site
could look good if viewed in Internet Explorer / Windows with default
settings *and* the same monitor as that used by the author, *and* a
broadband connection.
Oh, and with 'View Source' disabled, just in case one was tempted to
peek without an irony meter connected ...

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 18:46:07 -0800, com crumb wrote:

Your reply to my question doesn't sound dickish at all. But I'd like
to know what you would suggest instead of FrontPage.

Thanks!

If you MUST use a WYSIWYG HTML layout tool, I recommend Macromedia
Dreamweaver. It has its quirks and issues and I *never* use it because I
hate it (more on why I hate it in a moment) but it is the Photoshop of
HTML layout tools. And Photoshop Kicks Ass(TM) as you may be aware.

Why do I hate DW? I am primarily a "coder". I use PHP and I know HTML
pretty darn well, too, by now. I use Vim (a text editor) to edit code by
hand. It is not as slow as it sounds -- Vim has automation tools and is
designed to make editing code easy and fast. But my colleague, who is
primarily a "designer" uses DW for all his layout, *and*, unfortunately,
for his coding, as well. (See this thread -- in this newsgroup -- for a
philosophical discussion on the roles and specializations of Web
developers: http://tinyurl.com/24mam )

DW takes the code and makes it hard to read! This is my number one reason
why I dislike DW. It breaks lines that I *intend* to have unbroken or it
*doesn't* break lines where I would have broken them. It messes up my
carefully laid out indentations. It mucks up my code!

DW does other bad things, like putting two or three or four nested FONT
tags in when you make changes to a font's color or it leaves extra bits of
"empty" HTML floating about your page that you will never notice but that
*do* make your page needlessly bigger. By and large, though, DW is a great
tool! Really. Its just that *I* will never use it.

FrontPage, OTOH, is a monster. FrontPage makes HUGE, MESSY pages that are
only *really* viewable in MSIE. FrontPage comes with a number of
"templates" that, IMO, are all UGLY! FrontPage websites almost invariably
look amateurish**, dated, and, frankly, ugly. FrontPage is an abomination
that must be stopped! But unfortunately, FrontPage is backed by the
Microsoft gorilla and will never die.

Okay, back to the original question. What should you use? Personally, I
think you should learn HTML and code "by hand" -- which, given the
advanced text editors available (and there are a majillion great text
editors) is really not that hard. But ultimately is doesn't matter what
you use. The editor, be it FP, DW, or hand-editing, is just a tool. It
won't add talent or experience.

later...

===
**FrontPage websites may look amateurish simply because FP is typically
used by amatuers. I find it very difficult to imagine a pro web designer
using FrontPage!
====

--
Jeffrey D. Silverman | jeffrey AT jhu DOT edu
Website | http://www.wse.jhu.edu/newtnotes/

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 09:39:42 -0500, Jeffrey Silverman <jeffrey (AT) jhu (DOT) edu>
wrote:

FrontPage, OTOH, is a monster. FrontPage makes HUGE, MESSY pages that are
only *really* viewable in MSIE.

Just to put some numbers on that for the benefit of the OP:

I have taken a FrontPage page which took 30 seconds to load over a modem
link and reduced it to 8 seconds by using hand-coding (no clever tricks
- just removing garbage.)

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Stephen Poley wrote:

Just to put some numbers on that for the benefit of the OP:

I have taken a FrontPage page which took 30 seconds to load over a modem
link and reduced it to 8 seconds by using hand-coding (no clever tricks
- just removing garbage.)

Sounds like a lot of effort - and prone to introducing errors, too.
I'd imagine it could even turn out to be less work to just display the
Frontpatsch crud on a browser-like object, and copy/paste the content
from there into a fresh page in an appropriate editor, sprinkling-in
the appropriate HTML tags.

Some folks have reported good results with an option of HTMLtidy
for cleaning up that Frontpatsch mess. Maybe I should try it myself.

However, I have to check our authors manually to make sure they
haven't applied dirty tricks, like including Mac-specific characters
(we have one author who insists on using an ancient Mac copy of MS
Word, which seems to cause nasty things to happen when the .doc/.rtf
is transferred to Windoze), or <font face="webdings">, behind my back.
It's hard to spot one of those tricks, hidden deep in several hundred
lines of text, even if you already have a clue of what you might need
to look for.

sigh

Alan J. Flavell flavell (AT) ph (DOT) gla.ac.uk wrote:

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Stephen Poley wrote:

Just to put some numbers on that for the benefit of the OP:

I have taken a FrontPage page which took 30 seconds to load over a modem
link and reduced it to 8 seconds by using hand-coding (no clever tricks
- just removing garbage.)

Sounds like a lot of effort - and prone to introducing errors, too.
I'd imagine it could even turn out to be less work to just display the
Frontpatsch crud on a browser-like object, and copy/paste the content
from there into a fresh page in an appropriate editor, sprinkling-in
the appropriate HTML tags.

That's basically how I've dealt with transforming quite large sites from
FPML into HTML. If you paste into a decent template it takes no time at
all, and you don't have to waste time helplessly giggling at what FP
managed to concoct.

--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"to the man who only has a hammer, everything looks
like a job for somebody with a decent tool kit"

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 12:51:40 -0000, Eric Jarvis <web (AT) ericjarvis (DOT) co.uk>
declared in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design:

you don't have to waste time helplessly giggling at what FP
managed to concoct.

But that's half the fun!

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au