By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
424,988 Members | 1,367 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 424,988 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

address bar icons

P: n/a
i've noticed some sites have a custom icon in the address bar, next to the
url. how can i do that?

thanks.

john b.
Jul 20 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
43 Replies


P: n/a
On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 21:40:37 -0500, JohnB <no****@bellNOSPAMsouth.net>
wrote:
i've noticed some sites have a custom icon in the address bar, next to
the
url. how can i do that?

thanks.

john b.

Google for favicon.
Jul 20 '05 #2

P: n/a
JohnB wrote:
i've noticed some sites have a custom icon in the address bar, next to the
url. how can i do that?


http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?Litt...e_location_bar

--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is
Jul 20 '05 #3

P: n/a
it says here that this is the code:

<LINK rel="shortcut icon" href="img.gif" type="image/x-icon">

but it's not working for me..

on this page itself, this code they say is what to do to display favicon
is not there.. ????????? :(

I see there are sites (http://www.favicon.co.uk/) that will "generate"
favicons for you.. what does this mean?? Shouldn't I just be able to
create my own img and put in code that will display img? thanks.. Frances

David Dorward wrote:
JohnB wrote:

i've noticed some sites have a custom icon in the address bar, next to the
url. how can i do that?

http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?Litt...e_location_bar


Jul 20 '05 #4

P: n/a
Frances Del Rio wrote:
it says here that this is the code:

<LINK rel="shortcut icon" href="img.gif" type="image/x-icon">

but it's not working for me..

on this page itself, this code they say is what to do to display favicon
is not there.. ????????? :(

I see there are sites (http://www.favicon.co.uk/) that will "generate"
favicons for you.. what does this mean?? Shouldn't I just be able to
create my own img and put in code that will display img? thanks.. Frances


The extension for an "favicon" (icon file) must be .ico in order to work
as an icon file in the address bar, the computers desktop or whereever
you want to have it.

<LINK rel="shortcut icon" href="/favicon.ico" type="image/x-icon">

You can use any image file to make an .ico file from it. For that you
need a software, like IrfanView from http://www.irfanview.com that can
resize and save the image as .ico

For "favicon" on addressbar I suggest that the size should be 16x16
pixels, and 32x32 for desktop icons.

--
Arne
Jul 20 '05 #5

P: n/a
On 17/8/04 5:26 pm, Frances Del Rio wrote:
it says here that this is the code:

<LINK rel="shortcut icon" href="img.gif" type="image/x-icon">

but it's not working for me..


It isn't working because you can't use a .gif image. You need to use a .ico
image.

Instead of posting back here to ask what a .ico image is and how you go
about making one, perhaps you could read some of the web pages mentioned in
response to your last post.

--
Philip Ronan
ph***********@virgin.net
(Please remove the "z"s if replying by email)
Jul 20 '05 #6

P: n/a
Arne wrote:
The extension for an "favicon" (icon file) must be .ico in order to work
as an icon file in the address bar, the computers desktop or whereever
you want to have it.

<LINK rel="shortcut icon" href="/favicon.ico" type="image/x-icon">

You can use any image file to make an .ico file from it. For that you
need a software, like IrfanView from http://www.irfanview.com that can
resize and save the image as .ico

For "favicon" on addressbar I suggest that the size should be 16x16
pixels, and 32x32 for desktop icons.


A small correction, it is possible to use images with other extensions
as "favicon" for the address bar, but the "type="image/x-icon" must be
change to the extension that is used (i.e. type="image/png" for a .png
file).

"My experience is that they are not supported by IE. An example from
Mozilla.org
<link rel="icon" href="../../images/mozilla-16.png" type="image/png">
Works fine on Mozilla, but not in IE

--
Arne
http://w1.978.telia.com/~u97802964/
--------------------------------------
*IT/data-termer till vardags*
SKÄRMDUMP - minnesbild som stannat kvar
--------------------------------------
Jul 20 '05 #7

P: n/a


Philip Ronan wrote:
On 17/8/04 5:26 pm, Frances Del Rio wrote:

it says here that this is the code:

<LINK rel="shortcut icon" href="img.gif" type="image/x-icon">

but it's not working for me..

It isn't working because you can't use a .gif image. You need to use a .ico
image.

Instead of posting back here to ask what a .ico image is and how you go
about making one, perhaps you could read some of the web pages mentioned in
response to your last post.


I will.. thank you.. I guess next thing Photoshop needs to include in
next version is ability to save imgs w/an .ico extension.. :) thank
you very much all for yr help.. Frances


Jul 20 '05 #8

P: n/a
finally got this to work..... :)

http://www.francesdelrio.com/

thanks to everyone for their help... Frances


Philip Ronan wrote:
On 17/8/04 5:26 pm, Frances Del Rio wrote:

it says here that this is the code:

<LINK rel="shortcut icon" href="img.gif" type="image/x-icon">

but it's not working for me..

It isn't working because you can't use a .gif image. You need to use a .ico
image.

Instead of posting back here to ask what a .ico image is and how you go
about making one, perhaps you could read some of the web pages mentioned in
response to your last post.


Jul 20 '05 #9

P: n/a

ok, I spoke too soon.. it only works in Netscape (N7..), not in IE,
believe it or not.. (www.francesdelrio.com)
(wonder if it works on a mac at all.. I'm on a pc, running Win2000..)

also I looked at code for various sites that have these icons (yahoo,
google, nytimes, cnn, craigslist, etc..) I don't see this code in them:
<LINK rel="shortcut icon" href="img.gif" type="image/x-icon">
so there has to be another way of doing this.. ok.. thanks again to
everyone.. Frances

Frances Del Rio wrote:
finally got this to work..... :)

http://www.francesdelrio.com/

thanks to everyone for their help... Frances


Philip Ronan wrote:
On 17/8/04 5:26 pm, Frances Del Rio wrote:

it says here that this is the code:

<LINK rel="shortcut icon" href="img.gif" type="image/x-icon">

but it's not working for me..


It isn't working because you can't use a .gif image. You need to use a
.ico
image.

Instead of posting back here to ask what a .ico image is and how you go
about making one, perhaps you could read some of the web pages
mentioned in
response to your last post.


Jul 20 '05 #10

P: n/a
Frances Del Rio wrote:
finally got this to work..... :)

http://www.francesdelrio.com/

thanks to everyone for their help... Frances


Arrggg!! Don't mess with my browsers screen size! I choose the size I am
comfortable with and like to keep it that way. If I should visit your
site again, do I have to disable the javascript?

--
Arne
Jul 20 '05 #11

P: n/a
Frances Del Rio wrote:
ok, I spoke too soon.. it only works in Netscape (N7..), not in IE,
believe it or not.. (www.francesdelrio.com)
(wonder if it works on a mac at all.. I'm on a pc, running Win2000..)

also I looked at code for various sites that have these icons (yahoo,
google, nytimes, cnn, craigslist, etc..) I don't see this code in them:
<LINK rel="shortcut icon" href="img.gif" type="image/x-icon">
so there has to be another way of doing this.. ok.. thanks again to
everyone.. Frances


Please, don't top post.
It works just fine in my IE and Mozilla. Maybe you just have to empty
the cache and reload?

BTW, I don't see any "favicons" on the sites you mentioned?

--
Arne
Jul 20 '05 #12

P: n/a
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 15:24:34 -0400, Frances Del Rio <fd***@yahoo.com>
wrote:

ok, I spoke too soon.. it only works in Netscape (N7..), not in IE,
believe it or not.. (www.francesdelrio.com)
(wonder if it works on a mac at all.. I'm on a pc, running Win2000..)

also I looked at code for various sites that have these icons (yahoo,
google, nytimes, cnn, craigslist, etc..) I don't see this code in them:
<LINK rel="shortcut icon" href="img.gif" type="image/x-icon">
so there has to be another way of doing this.. ok.. thanks again to
everyone.. Frances


In IE it only appears if the link is bookmarked, if I'm not mistaken.

BTW, your site is totally unusable by a text browser - that would include
Google. The reason - all links are Javascript. Dump the Javascript links,
or have redundant normal links for users without Javascript enabled.
Jul 20 '05 #13

P: n/a
Arne wrote:
Frances Del Rio wrote:
I spoke too soon.. it only works in Netscape (N7..), not in IE

also I looked at code for various sites that have these icons
(yahoo, google, nytimes, cnn, craigslist, etc..) I don't see this
code in them: <LINK rel="shortcut icon" href="img.gif"
type="image/x-icon"> so there has to be another way of doing this..

IE Win only, put the fav icon in the root of the directoy, and IE will
use it without a link, but it seems to work with only certain versions.
It works just fine in my IE and Mozilla. Maybe you just have to empty
the cache and reload?

BTW, I don't see any "favicons" on the sites you mentioned?


Probably the same phenomenon: Not all versions of IE Win seem to treat
fav icon the same way. Note that my tests were very limited on this. I
have been able to get Firefox to recogize a fav icon on my test setup,
but not IE6.

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #14

P: n/a
ok, I took out the window-size script.. sorry, I was experimenting
w/something, had forgotten to take it off.. by the way, what's yr
screen resolution? how does this look to you??
http://www.francesdelrio.com/amitek (site I'm designing for a family
business..) thank you.. Frances

Arne wrote:
Frances Del Rio wrote:

finally got this to work..... :)

http://www.francesdelrio.com/

thanks to everyone for their help... Frances

Arrggg!! Don't mess with my browsers screen size! I choose the size I am
comfortable with and like to keep it that way. If I should visit your
site again, do I have to disable the javascript?


Jul 20 '05 #15

P: n/a
the top-post thing is funny.. I mean if we post at the end of post
(some of them long..) then we always have to scroll down to see post,
instead of seeing it as soon as we open post.. but ok, I'll try to
remember.. Frances
Arne wrote:
Frances Del Rio wrote:

ok, I spoke too soon.. it only works in Netscape (N7..), not in IE,
believe it or not.. (www.francesdelrio.com)
(wonder if it works on a mac at all.. I'm on a pc, running Win2000..)

also I looked at code for various sites that have these icons (yahoo,
google, nytimes, cnn, craigslist, etc..) I don't see this code in them:
<LINK rel="shortcut icon" href="img.gif" type="image/x-icon">
so there has to be another way of doing this.. ok.. thanks again to
everyone.. Frances

Please, don't top post.
It works just fine in my IE and Mozilla. Maybe you just have to empty
the cache and reload?

BTW, I don't see any "favicons" on the sites you mentioned?


Jul 20 '05 #16

P: n/a
*Frances Del Rio* wrote:
*Arne* wrote:
Please, don't top post.


the top-post thing is funny I mean if we post at the end of
post (some of them long..) then we always have to scroll
down to see post, instead of seeing it as soon as we open
post.. but ok, I'll try to remember.. Frances


Odd, this post doesn't seem to have that excessive scrolling problem.

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top posting such a bad thing?
A: Top posting.
Q: What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

[Q&A attributed to Rich Teer?]
--
Andrew Urquhart
- FAQ: http://www.htmlhelp.org/faq/html/
- Archive: http://tinyurl.com/2zw7m (Google Groups)
- Contact me: http://andrewu.co.uk/contact/
- This post is probably time-stamped +1 hour - blame my ISP (NTL)
Jul 20 '05 #17

P: n/a


Neal wrote:
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 15:24:34 -0400, Frances Del Rio <fd***@yahoo.com>
wrote:

ok, I spoke too soon.. it only works in Netscape (N7..), not in IE,
believe it or not.. (www.francesdelrio.com)
(wonder if it works on a mac at all.. I'm on a pc, running Win2000..)

also I looked at code for various sites that have these icons (yahoo,
google, nytimes, cnn, craigslist, etc..) I don't see this code in them:
<LINK rel="shortcut icon" href="img.gif" type="image/x-icon">
so there has to be another way of doing this.. ok.. thanks again to
everyone.. Frances


In IE it only appears if the link is bookmarked, if I'm not mistaken.

BTW, your site is totally unusable by a text browser - that would
include Google. The reason - all links are Javascript. Dump the
Javascript links, or have redundant normal links for users without
Javascript enabled.


interesting... how many people use text-only browsers anymore? (and
why?) if you disable JavaScript, it seems to me, most websites nowadays
would probably not work very well.. only some links on my home page are
JS links; all of them contain JS scripts (for rollovers), but not all of
them are JS links.. most are normal <a href="pg.html"> links.. what do
you mean "Google"? Google has a text-only browser??

that little icon.. it's true, in IE it only worked for me once I had
bookmarked page.. oh well.. thanks again.. Frances
Jul 20 '05 #18

P: n/a


Brian wrote:
Arne wrote:
Frances Del Rio wrote:
I spoke too soon.. it only works in Netscape (N7..), not in IE

also I looked at code for various sites that have these icons
(yahoo, google, nytimes, cnn, craigslist, etc..) I don't see this
code in them: <LINK rel="shortcut icon" href="img.gif"
type="image/x-icon"> so there has to be another way of doing this..


IE Win only, put the fav icon in the root of the directoy, and IE will
use it without a link, but it seems to work with only certain versions.


yes, this worked, and only after I had bookmarked page, like someone
mentioned earlier.. in Netscape it works intermittently..
It works just fine in my IE and Mozilla. Maybe you just have to empty
the cache and reload?

BTW, I don't see any "favicons" on the sites you mentioned?


yes, I noticed this too, again, if you bookmark these pages you'll see
them.. oh well... thanks again to everyone for yr responses.. Francs
Jul 20 '05 #19

P: n/a
*Frances Del Rio* wrote:
*Neal* wrote:

[snip]
BTW, your site is totally unusable by a text browser - that would
include Google. The reason - all links are Javascript. Dump the
Javascript links, or have redundant normal links for users without
Javascript enabled.


interesting... how many people use text-only browsers anymore? (and
why?) if you disable JavaScript, it seems to me, most websites
nowadays would probably not work very well.. only some links on my
home page are JS links; all of them contain JS scripts (for
rollovers), but not all of them are JS links.. most are normal <a
href="pg.html"> links.. what do you mean "Google"? Google has a
text-only browser??


Just one of the reasons:
http://www.google.co.uk/webmasters/guidelines.html
--
Andrew Urquhart
- FAQ: http://www.htmlhelp.org/faq/html/
- Archive: http://tinyurl.com/2zw7m (Google Groups)
- Contact me: http://andrewu.co.uk/contact/
- This post is probably time-stamped +1 hour - blame my ISP (NTL)
Jul 20 '05 #20

P: n/a

Frances Del Rio wrote:
the top-post thing is funny.. I mean if we post at the end of post
(some of them long..) then we always have to scroll down to see post,
instead of seeing it as soon as we open post.. but ok, I'll try to
remember.. Frances
sorry about this, as I was writing this still forgot to post below.. I
swear I didn't do it on purpose.. I'm so used to top-posting.. I have
been using usenet for about 10 years now, and it's only recently that
some folks have been asking people to not top-post..
Arne wrote:
Frances Del Rio wrote:

ok, I spoke too soon.. it only works in Netscape (N7..), not in IE,
believe it or not.. (www.francesdelrio.com)
(wonder if it works on a mac at all.. I'm on a pc, running Win2000..)

also I looked at code for various sites that have these icons (yahoo,
google, nytimes, cnn, craigslist, etc..) I don't see this code in them:
<LINK rel="shortcut icon" href="img.gif" type="image/x-icon">
so there has to be another way of doing this.. ok.. thanks again to
everyone.. Frances

Please, don't top post.
It works just fine in my IE and Mozilla. Maybe you just have to empty
the cache and reload?

BTW, I don't see any "favicons" on the sites you mentioned?


Jul 20 '05 #21

P: n/a


Andrew Urquhart wrote:
*Frances Del Rio* wrote:
*Neal* wrote:


[snip]
BTW, your site is totally unusable by a text browser - that would
include Google. The reason - all links are Javascript. Dump the
Javascript links, or have redundant normal links for users without
Javascript enabled.


interesting... how many people use text-only browsers anymore? (and
why?) if you disable JavaScript, it seems to me, most websites
nowadays would probably not work very well.. only some links on my
home page are JS links; all of them contain JS scripts (for
rollovers), but not all of them are JS links.. most are normal <a
href="pg.html"> links.. what do you mean "Google"? Google has a
text-only browser??

Just one of the reasons:
http://www.google.co.uk/webmasters/guidelines.html


interesting.. my site is purely personal and of no commercial interest,
so I have never really made an effort to appear on search engines, and
anyway, I was always under the impression that for your site to be
seriously picked up by any relevant search engines you had to pay..
there are services that for a fee will make yr site be picked up by
search engines.. is this right?? where engines like google and yahoo
come in here I don't know... oh well, since I've never really delved
too much into this subject don't know much about it I guess.. :)

Frances

Jul 20 '05 #22

P: n/a
Frances Del Rio <fd***@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:2o************@uni-berlin.de:
Andrew Urquhart wrote:
Just one of the reasons:
http://www.google.co.uk/webmasters/guidelines.html


interesting.. my site is purely personal and of no commercial
interest, so I have never really made an effort to appear on search
engines, and anyway, I was always under the impression that for your
site to be seriously picked up by any relevant search engines you
had to pay.. there are services that for a fee will make yr site be
picked up by search engines.. is this right??


Scam artists etc. If people link to your page, search engines will come.
Even if a site is non-commercial, you may wish for search engines to be
able to index it well when they get to it, so that people who are
interested in what is on your Web page can find it easily.

--
How to make it so visitors can't resize your fonts:
<http://www.rpi.edu/~hughes/www/wise_guy/unresizable_text.html>
Jul 20 '05 #23

P: n/a
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 21:30:11 -0400, Frances Del Rio <fd***@yahoo.com>
wrote:
anyway, I was always under the impression that for your site to be
seriously picked up by any relevant search engines you had to pay..
there are services that for a fee will make yr site be picked up by
search engines.. is this right??


You could pay a lot of money. I put opro.org on top of the search engines
without paying a dime. Helps that it is a 501(c)(3) because we can take
advantage of some free opportunities that would cost money for regular
businesses or individuals to be listed, but could have done it without
them too.

See alt.internet.search-engines for more info on this topic.
Jul 20 '05 #24

P: n/a
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 20:49:45 -0400, Frances Del Rio <fd***@yahoo.com>
wrote:
the top-post thing is funny.. I mean if we post at the end of post
(some of them long..) then we always have to scroll down to see post,
Unless you trim what doesn't need to remain, hmm? :)
instead of seeing it as soon as we open post.. but ok, I'll try to
remember.. Frances


Please do. It's good manners! Keep everything in conversation order.
Jul 20 '05 #25

P: n/a
Frances Del Rio wrote:
the top-post thing is funny..
Will is still be funny when you get kill filed by the regulars?
I mean if we post at the end of post (some of them long..) then we
always have to scroll down to see post, instead of seeing it as soon
as we open post..
Only if you don't take the time to snip quotes. Part of proper posting
is proper quoting. Don't leave the entire message quoted. Cut it down to
only the parts that are relevant to your reply.
ok, I'll try to remember.. Frances


Apparently not, since your message was top posted, full quote under your
message.
Frances Del Rio wrote:

ok, I spoke too soon.. it only works in Netscape (N7..), not in
IE,


[remainder of full quote snipped]

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #26

P: n/a
Frances Del Rio wrote:
ok, I took out the window-size script.. sorry, I was experimenting
w/something, had forgotten to take it off.. by the way, what's yr
screen resolution? how does this look to you??
http://www.francesdelrio.com/amitek (site I'm designing for a family
business..) thank you.. Frances


Thank's for the window-size :-)

My screen resolution is 1024x768 and I open the browser in full size.
The "amitek" design looks good over all, but if I would change a few
things. Rezising to 800x600 goes well, without horizontal scrollbar.

The images are much to big in kilobytes, if the costumer like to have
visitors without broadband. For exemple on the start page, "front.jpg"
is 99 kB, copy.jpg is 46 kB and the total size of the page is over 184
kB. Downloadtime on 56K modem takes far more then 30 sec.

The other pages have even larger images (main-emp.jpg, 118 kB) and the
"empresa.html" page have even longer download time.

The font size may be to small for some visitors. But you are using
pixels for the font size, that makes it impossible to rezise for IE
users. If you use 'em' or percentages.

--
Arne
Jul 20 '05 #27

P: n/a

Brian wrote:
Frances Del Rio wrote:
the top-post thing is funny..

Will is still be funny when you get kill filed by the regulars?


"kill filed by the regulars"? you mean delete posts?? I have never
done that, don't even know how to do it.. (can anybody just delete
posts?? I've always wondered about that..)

Frances


Jul 20 '05 #28

P: n/a
Frances Del Rio wrote:

Brian wrote:
Frances Del Rio wrote:
the top-post thing is funny..


Will is still be funny when you get kill filed by the regulars?

"kill filed by the regulars"? you mean delete posts?? I have never
done that, don't even know how to do it.. (can anybody just delete
posts?? I've always wondered about that..)


No, "kill filed" means their newsreader no longer displays your messages.

What you are thinking of is "cancelling", which deletes the message from
the server. Yes, anybody can cancel anybody else's messages. Not all
newsservers allow cancels, and if the message is old, the CANCEL might
not propagate to all newsservers.
Matthias

Jul 20 '05 #29

P: n/a
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 21:04:44 -0400, Frances Del Rio <fd***@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Neal wrote:
BTW, your site is totally unusable by a text browser - that would
include Google. The reason - all links are Javascript. Dump the
Javascript links, or have redundant normal links for users without
Javascript enabled.
interesting... how many people use text-only browsers anymore? (and
why?)


May I offer http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/whatnojs.html for
some thoughts on the subject.
if you disable JavaScript, it seems to me, most websites nowadays
would probably not work very well..


"Most" is an exaggeration, but rather a lot do not, it is true.

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/
Jul 20 '05 #30

P: n/a

Stephen Poley wrote:
May I offer http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/whatnojs.html for
some thoughts on the subject.
if you disable JavaScript, it seems to me, most websites nowadays
would probably not work very well..


very intersting Stephen, however, a few initial comments (haven't read
thru all of it but I will later..)

1) pages can be set up to reload every few mins or so w/o JavaScript,
this can be done in meta tags...

2) yes, things like disabling "back" button on browser is annyoing as
hell and I would never do it.. however other things are cool.. as I've
said here and elsewhere before, I think pop-ups are a very cool feature
and very good UI can be designed w/them if you do it right.. it is a
damn shame that advertisers abuse this feature so much.. personally I
think pop-up blockers should only block UNSOLICITED pop-ups.. pop-ups
on my site are all opened by user, and they all have a "close window"
link, which I think pop-ups should always have..

3) fonts: I'm a font freak, and I ABSOLUTELY HATE arial, I think it's
the ugliest font on the planet, and I think it sucks that all browsers
default to it.. and what can I say, I do like verdana a lot, use it a
lot.. yes, it's bigger than other fonts, but I take this into account
when designing.. you know, there are so many diff. opinions about all
this... I have been doing HTML for about 10 years now and still today
am always learning new stuff and constantly changing code in my site..
can u have a look at my site and comment? www.francesdelrio.com...
would like to continue discussion, send me e-mail from my site if you
want to... (my e-mail works from here too, believe it or not, free news
server I subscribe to you have to put yr real e-mail address..) thanks..
Frances
Jul 20 '05 #31

P: n/a
Stephen Poley wrote:
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 21:04:44 -0400, Frances Del Rio <fd***@yahoo.com>
wrote:
if you disable JavaScript, it seems to me, most websites nowadays
would probably not work very well..

"Most" is an exaggeration, but rather a lot do not, it is true.


The overwhelming majority "work" just fine for me. I figure the few
where I can't see anything or can't navigate or whetever don't have
anything of value anyway.

--
Stan McCann "Uncle Pirate"
Webmaster/Computer Center Manager, NMSU at Alamogordo
Cooordinator, Tularosa Basin Chapter, ABATE of NM AMA#758681
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked) :( http://motorcyclefun.org/Dcp_2068c.jpg
A zest for living must include a willingness to die. - R.A. Heinlein
Jul 20 '05 #32

P: n/a
Frances Del Rio wrote:
2) yes, things like disabling "back" button on browser is annyoing as
hell and I would never do it.. however other things are cool.. as I've
said here and elsewhere before, I think pop-ups are a very cool feature
and very good UI can be designed w/them if you do it right.. it is a
Some disagree about the cool factor. Are you creating a site for you or
others? What do your users think is cool?
damn shame that advertisers abuse this feature so much.. personally I
think pop-up blockers should only block UNSOLICITED pop-ups.. pop-ups
on my site are all opened by user, and they all have a "close window"
link, which I think pop-ups should always have..
When I see a "close window" button, I think "Do you think I'm too stupid
to know how to close a window?" Is that what you really want to do?
Call your users stupid?

3) fonts: I'm a font freak, and I ABSOLUTELY HATE arial, I think it's
the ugliest font on the planet, and I think it sucks that all browsers
default to it.. and what can I say, I do like verdana a lot, use it a
You may hate something. Are you making your pages for you or others?
What about what the user likes or hates? I have my own fonts selected
to fit my taste. Why must I deal with your taste?
lot.. yes, it's bigger than other fonts, but I take this into account
when designing.. you know, there are so many diff. opinions about all
this... I have been doing HTML for about 10 years now and still today
Yes, there are lots of different opinions. Hang out in these groups and
get to know which people seem to know what they are talking about. Once
you get some idea of who's who, you can then determine whether to
consider thier opinions or not. Also, how many "regulars" have the same
opinions? That can give you clues as to what's best too.
am always learning new stuff and constantly changing code in my site..


A web site should never be "done." Most of my stuff changes frequently
also, as it should. I do have some old stuff that I've pretty much
forgot about though - need to work on it some day.

--
Stan McCann "Uncle Pirate"
Webmaster/Computer Center Manager, NMSU at Alamogordo
Cooordinator, Tularosa Basin Chapter, ABATE of NM AMA#758681
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked) :( http://motorcyclefun.org/Dcp_2068c.jpg
A zest for living must include a willingness to die. - R.A. Heinlein
Jul 20 '05 #33

P: n/a
JRS: In article <2o************@uni-berlin.de>,
dated Tue, 17 Aug 2004 21:30:11, seen in news:comp.in
fosystems.www.authoring.html, Frances Del Rio
<fd***@yahoo.com> posted :
interesting.. my site is purely personal and of no commercial interest,
so I have never really made an effort to appear on search engines, and
anyway, I was always under the impression that for your site to be
seriously picked up by any relevant search engines you had to pay..
there are services that for a fee will make yr site be picked up by
search engines.. is this right?? where engines like google and yahoo
come in here I don't know... oh well, since I've never really delved
too much into this subject don't know much about it I guess.. :)


My site was found by search engines without, as far
as I recall, any particular encouragement. Someone
may have linked to it.

Do search engines find a site if the ONLY reference
to it is in News (and Web pages mechanically derived
from News), either as <URL:http://www.this.that/> or
as <a href="http://www.this.that/">thisthat</a> ?

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk DOS 3.3, 6.20; Win98. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links.
PAS EXE TXT ZIP via <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/00index.htm>
My DOS <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/batfiles.htm> - also batprogs.htm.
Jul 20 '05 #34

P: n/a
Uncle Pirate wrote:
Frances Del Rio wrote:
2) yes, things like disabling "back" button on browser is annyoing as
hell and I would never do it.. however other things are cool.. as
I've said here and elsewhere before, I think pop-ups are a very cool
feature and very good UI can be designed w/them if you do it right..
Some disagree about the cool factor. Are you creating a site for you or
others? What do your users think is cool? When I see a "close window" button, I think "Do you think I'm too stupid
to know how to close a window?" Is that what you really want to do?
Call your users stupid?
I personally find it very annoying to have to click on that stupid
little corner on the top right to close window, much prefer a "close
window" link... so you see, a lot of this is simply a matter of taste..
unlike you, I find it very annoying when pop-ups don't have a "close
window" link..
3) fonts: I'm a font freak, and I ABSOLUTELY HATE arial, I think it's
the ugliest font on the planet, and I think it sucks that all browsers
default to it.. and what can I say, I do like verdana a lot, use it a


You may hate something. Are you making your pages for you or others?
What about what the user likes or hates? I have my own fonts selected
to fit my taste. Why must I deal with your taste?


well hey, we all have our tastes and styles, everyboy designs according
to their own style and taste and what they think looks good, at the same
time trying, if you know what you're doing, to stick to some basic UI
design guidelines that will make navigation thru yr site as seamless as
possible.. this is what we all strive for, and many different people
have many different ways of achieving this.. important is to keep an
open mind and always be open to new ideas and new ways of doing things
you may not have known about..
A web site should never be "done."


this is absolutely true, of course..

Jul 20 '05 #35

P: n/a
Frances Del Rio wrote:
I personally find it very annoying to have to click on that stupid
little corner on the top right to close window, much prefer a "close
window" link... so you see, a lot of this is simply a matter of taste..
unlike you, I find it very annoying when pop-ups don't have a "close
window" link..
Actually, I don't like popups at all and I am already moving the mouse
pointer towards the top right before I see a thing in the popup. And
you are correct, it is a matter of taste. The trick is to find out what
your potential users' tastes are. With that said, I'm sure that most of
us depend on our likes and dislikes. I wish I could say that I didn't,
but I can't.
well hey, we all have our tastes and styles, everyboy designs according
to their own style and taste and what they think looks good, at the same
time trying, if you know what you're doing, to stick to some basic UI
design guidelines that will make navigation thru yr site as seamless as
possible.. this is what we all strive for, and many different people
have many different ways of achieving this.. important is to keep an
open mind and always be open to new ideas and new ways of doing things
you may not have known about..
I lied. I don't really have my own fonts selected, I'm perfectly happy
with the defaults. I was just suggesting another POV. You may be
missing something here; not only do you want to make navigating your
site as seamless as possible, you also need to make your site so that
the people you wish to attract *want* to navigate your site. If you
depend too much on your ideas and tastes instead of trying to figure out
what the user wants and likes, people will not want to navigate your
site, they will leave instead.
A web site should never be "done."

this is absolutely true, of course..


Theoretically anyway. :)

--
Stan McCann "Uncle Pirate"
Webmaster/Computer Center Manager, NMSU at Alamogordo
Cooordinator, Tularosa Basin Chapter, ABATE of NM AMA#758681
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked) :( http://motorcyclefun.org/Dcp_2068c.jpg
A zest for living must include a willingness to die. - R.A. Heinlein
Jul 20 '05 #36

P: n/a
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 15:29:41 +0100, Dr John Stockton
<sp**@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
JRS: In article <2o************@uni-berlin.de>,
dated Tue, 17 Aug 2004 21:30:11, seen in news:comp.in
fosystems.www.authoring.html, Frances Del Rio
<fd***@yahoo.com> posted :
interesting.. my site is purely personal and of no commercial interest,
so I have never really made an effort to appear on search engines, and
anyway, I was always under the impression that for your site to be
seriously picked up by any relevant search engines you had to pay..

No, there are no such things involved at the basic level. But naturally
money will "grease the wheels" if you are inclined to do that.
Take a dive into Google to find out what they have to offer as "extras"
:-)
My site was found by search engines without, as far
as I recall, any particular encouragement.
Sound structural markup of content with a _very_ small level of
repetition in headlines and main content of relevant keywords for the
subject that is described. I.e. just write headlines and content as you
would like it to appear in a publication that you would pay money for at
your local news stand.
Someone may have linked to it.
For some search engines that might help a bit on the way, still it's not
a requirement.
Do search engines find a site if the ONLY reference
to it is in News...


They will find it even if it's only mentioned in "the land that is not".

Try that search criteria, quotes included, and look at hits around 4-8
in Google. I have never ever made that page public to any one, it was
still found somehow.

It represents one of my very early exercises in CSS too, IE4 was "hot"
when I wrote it but since it still shows in modern browsers as I once
suggested, I may have done something right for once :-)

--
Rex
Jul 20 '05 #37

P: n/a
Jan Roland Eriksson wrote:
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 15:29:41 +0100, Dr John Stockton
<sp**@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
JRS: In article <2o************@uni-berlin.de>,
dated Tue, 17 Aug 2004 21:30:11, seen in news:comp.in
fosystems.www.authoring.html, Frances Del Rio
<fd***@yahoo.com> posted :
interesting.. my site is purely personal and of no commercial interest,
so I have never really made an effort to appear on search engines, and
anyway, I was always under the impression that for your site to be
seriously picked up by any relevant search engines you had to pay..
No, there are no such things involved at the basic level. But naturally
money will "grease the wheels" if you are inclined to do that.
Take a dive into Google to find out what they have to offer as "extras"
:-)
Be wary of people offering to promote your site for you.
My site was found by search engines without, as far
as I recall, any particular encouragement.
Likewise.
Sound structural markup of content with a _very_ small level of
repetition in headlines and main content of relevant keywords for the
subject that is described. I.e. just write headlines and content as you
would like it to appear in a publication that you would pay money for at
your local news stand.
Someone may have linked to it.
For some search engines that might help a bit on the way, still it's not
a requirement.


If there's no link anywhere, how will it be found? Maybe the Google
toolbars (e.g. in IE and Opera) will help for Google.
Do search engines find a site if the ONLY reference
to it is in News...


It found mine. For a while, the only links I could find were on Usenet
(according to the logs) yet it ranked surprisingly high.
They will find it even if it's only mentioned in "the land that is not".

Try that search criteria, quotes included, and look at hits around 4-8
in Google. I have never ever made that page public to any one, it was
still found somehow.


Maybe a referrer log was published? Or your own log? Or a Google toolbar
or similar 'saw' it?

--
Matt
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Jul 20 '05 #38

P: n/a
In article <pa****************************@spam.matt.blissett .me.uk>,
Matt <no******@spam.matt.blissett.me.uk> wrote:
Try that search criteria, quotes included, and look at hits around 4-8
in Google. I have never ever made that page public to any one, it was
still found somehow.


Maybe a referrer log was published? Or your own log? Or a Google toolbar
or similar 'saw' it?


There are some weblogs around that like to publish links to sites that
refer to them by picking up any sort of referer header from inbound
visitors. One such a website once linked to a site I look after. This
appeared in a (webalizer) page analyzing my server logs, so I decided to
follow the link back to the weblog. With my webalizer page suddenly
published in thw weblog's referer section, Google was easy to catch up
on any pages that appear in my server stats (which are a lot, some of
them not so much prepared for public consumption).

The conclusion is, that for many of the pages I never made public,
Google found it's way in through websites that carelessly pick up and
publish inbound links.

Of course I should have put the stats behind HTTP authentication or
something to prevent all this.

--
Kris
<kr*******@xs4all.netherlands> (nl)
Jul 20 '05 #39

P: n/a
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 23:31:12 +0100, Matt
<no******@spam.matt.blissett.me.uk> wrote:
Jan Roland Eriksson wrote:
[...snipped up a level of context...]
If there's no link anywhere, how will it be found?
Well, from the start of it there is this xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx addressing
method, where xxx in any position ranges from 0 to 255.

That in it self makes for a hell of a lot of "fixed addressed" sites.

Each and every one of those fixed adresses can then have any number of
virtually hosted adresses assigned, that still appears to the www as a
single unity at the URL level. You go figure on that :-)

Still; any one who knows a bit of the background here will be able to
write a computer program that is capable to scoot around every damned
virtual or real web address it can find :-)

Creating the actual web crawler is not the real challenge when it comes
to create a generic web database. The creation of intelligent selection
criterias otoh; that is the real robot designers problem :-)

[...]
They will find it even if it's only mentioned in "the land that is not".
Try that search criteria, quotes included...


[...]
Maybe a referrer log was published?
I don't know anything about that.
Or your own log?


I don't have one.

Generic advice for how to help web spiders...

1) A web site shall have human readable content.

2) A web site shall be structured and good to read and understand
without any other means than correct markup.

Rest of it is next grade class...

--
Rex
Jul 20 '05 #40

P: n/a
JRS: In article <9p********************************@4ax.com>, dated
Wed, 18 Aug 2004 23:55:11, seen in news:comp.infosystems.www.authoring.h
tml, Jan Roland Eriksson <jr****@newsguy.com> posted :
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 15:29:41 +0100, Dr John Stockton
<sp**@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:

My site was found by search engines without, as far
as I recall, any particular encouragement.


Sound structural markup of content with a _very_ small level of
repetition in headlines and main content of relevant keywords for the
subject that is described. I.e. just write headlines and content as you
would like it to appear in a publication that you would pay money for at
your local news stand.


I can assure you that my site was found without the aid of sound
structural markup (I don't deny that s.s.m. has other benefits).
Indeed, the state of the markup can have no effect on whether a site is
found, since the search engines cannot read a site until after they have
found it. I do here assume that the markup is such that the pages do
display, with some resemblance to what was intended, in at least one
common browser.
Finding is of course quite distinct from, though an essential precursor
to, getting a high rating.

Someone may have linked to it.


For some search engines that might help a bit on the way, still it's not
a requirement.
Do search engines find a site if the ONLY reference
to it is in News...


They will find it even if it's only mentioned in "the land that is not".

Try that search criteria, quotes included, and look at hits around 4-8
in Google. I have never ever made that page public to any one, it was
still found somehow.


But can you be sure that there was no existing reference to it? At one
stage, IIRC, a customer of my ISP was able to access a list including
all active hostnames, from which he generated a site linking to all
extant www.<hostname>.demon sites.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Proper <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (SonOfRFC1036)
Jul 20 '05 #41

P: n/a
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 12:36:50 +0100, Dr John Stockton
<sp**@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
JRS: In article <9p********************************@4ax.com>, dated
Wed, 18 Aug 2004 23:55:11, seen in news:comp.infosystems.www.authoring.h
tml, Jan Roland Eriksson <jr****@newsguy.com> posted :
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 15:29:41 +0100, Dr John Stockton
<sp**@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Sound structural markup of content with a _very_ small level of
repetition in headlines and main content of relevant keywords...
I can assure you that my site was found without the aid of sound
structural markup (I don't deny that s.s.m. has other benefits).
I was not expressing my self clear on that; what I was thinking of was
how to get a good indexing result once the page was found. Naturally any
URL can be found even if its content is just lousy "tag soup".

But as an extension to that line of reasoning, just the fact that a page
gets found does not automatically mean that it will be indexed. It is up
to the discretion of the spider programmer/operator to decide if he
needs some level of quality in a page to trigger the indexer to do its
job. That's where s.s.m. comes in.
Do search engines find a site if the ONLY reference
to it is in News...


They will find it even if it's only mentioned in "the land that is not".
Try that search criteria, quotes included...

But can you be sure that there was no existing reference to it?


At least Google's 'link:URL' search comes up blank for that page.

--
Rex
Jul 20 '05 #42

P: n/a
Quoth the raven Frances Del Rio:
"kill filed by the regulars"? you mean delete posts?? I have
never done that, don't even know how to do it.. (can anybody just
delete posts?? I've always wondered about that..)


In another post, you stated you have 10 years Usenet experience. How
is it then that you don't know what killfiling/plonking is?

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.
Jul 20 '05 #43

P: n/a
Jan Roland Eriksson wrote:
Dr John Stockton wrote
But can you be sure that there was no existing reference to it?


At least Google's 'link:URL' search comes up blank for that page.


That doesn't necessarily mean anything. I've seen Google's inbound link
search show up emtpy when I knew there were pages linking to site, and I
knew those pages containing the links were in Google's index. In fact,
Google's link: search doesn't seem terribly useful. I often find 2
dozens links to a page from the same domain. Well duh, I didn't really
need Google to tell me that example.com/foo links to example.com/bar.
Meanwhile other, exernal links, are missing. I've tried to figure out
other ways for finding external links to supplement Google's link search.

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 23 '05 #44

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.