Forum Moderators: open
Now they say it doesnt work in mozilla, however it works fine for the other 99%(IE netscape ect...) of browsers.
Its in the editors oppinion that I will not be listed, because of this.
So basicly I wait forever and a week for a 70 site list of sites, listing to get this?
Am i suppose to spend $20,000 so my site designer will make my site work for the DMOZ editor?
Im assuming $20,000 would be better spent on adwords.
I checked my logs for this month, Out of 3 million hits 49 were for moozilla, this is driving me crazy the whole scenario is insane!
I read your post at the RZ. I see the editor stated that your site was still in the unreviewed queue. Editors should not, and in all probability will not delete a site from unreviewed queue because they choose to use a certain browser. If the site was under construction may be another story, but it sounds as if there are only compatibility issues. Don't worry about it. It only means another editor may need to review the site ;)
Also, a tip or two;
1) Don't act/be sarcastic when asking something of someone. Editors are volunteers - it's not their job and they are answering on their time ;)
2) Try to make your site compatible by validating your code - if the browser doesn't support validated code - it's the browsers problem :)
EDITED: After looking at the code of your site I see many problems... also, take a look at your meta tags or should I say the designers tags ;)
It is really unbelieveable.
You must wait for months, you can rank ok, but with out a DMOZ listing you are hosed.
Then you may not get listed because a browzer that it used by .0001% of the world wont work your shopping cart.
So Im waiting my months out doing all I can, and I get suggested to list in my region, Good idea!
Now I prolly cant get in there. The whole scenario is completely ridiculess.
I go to Yahoo pay my $300 if my site is good enough I get listed, Google can care less about Yahoo, but still within a week I get a yay or nay.
Google puts alot of weight on DMOZ listing, seen a site go from page 15 of a very competitive key word to page 2 with just the DMOZ listing. 2nd bigest keyword went from page 5 to spot #1 with the Dmoz listing, and of course those 2 key words are in his description.
</end of Rant>
Not necessarily. There is a very good chance the editor will see the site doesn't work, and just assume the site is bad rather than it being browser specific.
Not necessarily. There is a very good chance the editor will see the site doesn't work, and just assume the site is bad rather than it being browser specific.
Then that editor needs to look into what his browser is capable of and what it is not. Also, editing is not a place to be testing out your favorite beta browser. We do not/should not delete sites from unreviewed queues because we are using a browser of our choosing. If we as editors run into a specific problem we should ask another editor to look at the site or note it as such - we should not delete them :(
If I find a site that is not working properly in IE or Opera I note it as such.
Or the editor will note the site doesn't work in some browsers and add "Needs IE" or some such comment to the description.
If you don't want such a comment added to your description, make sure the site works in the browser the editor will be using.
As you can't guess what that'll be, designing the site to be as cross-browser compatible as possible is sensible for that reason alone.
It may help speed up getting a listing. When I come across a site that doesn't work in my browser of choice, I usually go on to edit other sites before coming back to it and trying it in another browser. That can add weeks to the review.
It may also help other users of your site. Someone recently on WebmasterWorld reported they had 14% netscape visitors. So your .0001% may be low for some markets. Perhaps you get only that number because 10% of your potential customers leave after seeing a broken home page?
Yes, complaining that someone else should change their browser for you is pretty ridiculous.
Well, if those Mozilla users can't see anything on your site, would you really expect them to stick around? It's pointless to even run statistics about somthing that you actively prevent from happening.
Am i suppose to spend $20,000 so my site designer will make my site work for the DMOZ editor?
How much would it be worth to you to instantly increase your customer base by 5%? Because that's how many Mozilla visitory my own sites get (plus 3% NS4). Besides, if your web designer is really asking you this kind of amount just to generate correct HTML (which he should do anyway), then you might want to talk to your lawyer instead...
Of course, (almost ;)) everything else said by the others above about the ODP listing procedures is also true.
People do not understand the editing process and we have been round this many, many times. Let's not turn this into another one of those threads :)
Facts:
1)The site has compatibility problems and after looking at the source code you can see why.
2)Can this prolong getting your site listed - Yes!
3) Should editors delete sites because of compatibilty problems that works in other significant browsers - No!
The End :)
This assumes the editor is savvy about this sort of thing. Myself, while I normally use IE6, I also have Mozilla and Opera around on this box. If I suspect browser issues I have others to switch to. Most people I know don't have multiple browsers on their system, and I'd question if this is true for a lot of ODP editors. And, it takes a certain amount of Net savvy to pick up on cases where it is a browser specific issue, and not just a broken site. People submitting sites to the ODP should anticipate worst case scenario when it comes to editors and browsers.
I am not even close to being an expert, but I would say from what experts have told me, its way below 1%, not 10%
If you are refering to Netscape as 10% then sure I agree, my site is also 100% compatable with netscape, no problems at all.
I just downloaded "Mozilla" 1.3 Im not familiar with what might be the latest from them. Anyway when I browsed my site, looked just like netscape, all was perfect, now when i used my shopping cart all was perfect just like with netcape.
So now I dont know what these people are talking about?
Deanril: I shouldn't say this, and mods are permitted to delete this portion (I understand) but I would beware of a designer mixing MSOffice code, CF, FrontPage, and JavaScript and then putting links to their site in my meta tags :)
They do evade me, I mean to me the browser displays what the site is telling it to, I really dont see anything that is not displaying correctly.
Im sure in the Head there is a problem , the Doctype of course is messed up, other then that?
I see what you mean, thank you for clarifying that!
This site is a "Packages Deal" I fill it, I use a Browser GUI to edit ect, I actually use Dreamweaver on most of it.
Thank you very much for pointing that out, I never knew the reason for that part of the meta anyway, doesnt seem to have a site purpose ; )
I go ahead and buy 1 product fine, 10 product fine.
Now I am no expert with websites but I have alot of knowledge with Windows and Browsers having problems, my guess is we need a browser cache flush, as in delete browser cache all should be well after that.
Maybe the editor was having problems with an earlier release....
I'm pretty sure the HTML isn't the reason it's still waiting for review, however broken it may be. Interestingly, it displays fine (I think) in my Mozilla 1.4rc1 on Linux. Maybe your designer already fixed a few things in the mean time? I assume the remaining HTML problems have been pointed out to you by now, so I won't rehash the details.
Btw: I thought you were joking about MOOZILLA and those 49 hits. There seems to be someone out there who uses this as their user agent. Most likely, the real Mozilla is hidden in your stats as "Netscape" something or other.
I don't know many that are not "net savvy" that are willing to use beta browsers/software
Mozilla isn't beta software. It's one of the most powerful and standards conforming browsers in existence today. If it doesn't work with that, then in 99% of the cases the problem is with the site.
You don't need ODP if you're doing this well, do you?
As for optimizing your site, we're talking about standard, normal browser _compatibility_ which is not optimization.
My site is SEO optimized as best I can do. The problem with buying a "Package Deal" site is the code. I have had the guy fix a bunch of problems, and I know there are still more. But I dont have 100% control over alot of it. the part I do is perfect.
We are making a new site here in a couple weeks, and I will have 100% control over the code, there will be no mistakes.
But 4 months ago I knew nothing about making websites, I did 98% of that site, I have learned a lot, SEO and about code, so I wont make that mistake again. Thank you
Regarding editors using multiple browsers, most people I know that are using browsers like Opera or Mozilla as their default know enough about browser compatibility to realize that just because a site doesn't render properly for them doesn't mean it doesn't in all browsers. Most non-techies that I know use whatever came installed on their machine (IE or Netscape), usually in Windows, and won't experience a lot of the problems other browsers/platforms experience. Me, I know that sites frequently have problems in IE on a Mac so I have Netscape, Mozilla, and Opera installed.
Well damn it, it looks good for most people! Lol, thank you Ill see what I can do, I dont own a mac, but still Ill check into thank you very much!
The rendering engine for Mozilla, Gecko, is also the engine for Netscape 6 and AOL 8, as well as a few "toy" browsers. (K-meleon, Phoenix, Galeon, Chimera -- I mean, come on, who uses Chimera now that Safari is out?)
If you are seeing no Mozilla, either your site stats are lousy (quite likely) or your site is sending them away.
I had a few Lynx visitors this month. I've also had people using Pluto, on Acorn (for the RISC processor). All the more reason to write compliant, clean code.
I am getting MAC people too
6 Macintosh PowerPC 37,280 1.27% < this is under OS's
My two cents worth is this.. it doesn't need to work for every browser known to mankind, I mean I don't give a rat's rear about Lynx, Netscape 1 to 4, IE2, IE3, IE4 and Mosaic, but if you're shelling out stacks of cash it should at least work in IE5+, NS6+, Mozilla/Firebird/Whatever, Opera plus common Mac and Linux browsers, and frankly all it needs is decent HTML.
And if you want to find somewhere where you can be sure there'll be a concentration of non-IE users, it'll be the ODP. Partly because you've got a community of wishy-washy peacenik liberals who like to give everything away for free, and partly because you're less likely to get a drive-by download, virus, popup storm or other rubbish - pretty important when you plough through hundreds of sites every week.
[Added: I'm lazy and just try it in IE6 and Netscape 4.6.. if it'll work in Netscape 4.6 then it should work on anything]
Dynamoo Thank you, he (my site designer) was just frustrated when I told him about it.
I really have never had any browser problems at all. Even Mozila works perfect. The only problem i have is with Macs running IE5 all the rest of the browsers seem to be perfect, thank you!
Look, go over to Yahoo and submit your brain-damaged-HTML from your brain-dead developer. Pay your $300, and see how fast you get an absolute refusal to list: "site won't work in Netscape 4" 30 days to fix it, or pay another $300 if you ever want the site looked at again.
The ODP's policy is both more liberal, and $300 cheaper.
As an experienced editor AND website developer, I can from firsthand knowledge tell you that (1) the editors are doing a good job for you, and telling you the truth, and (2) your website developer is doing neither. It does not require room-temperature IQ to get a page of HTML to validate correctly, but if your developer did have a room-temperature IQ, it would take no more time to clean up his own trash than it would have taken to make in the first place.
You hired an incompetant web designer. He may well be frustrated at being expected to tie his own shoes, but you can hardly expect to pay him $5000 to tie YOUR shoes, and then think that the world owes you free help untangling the knot. The world will not agree.
All is well with site thank you for your imput, thank you everyone you are all so very helpful, for people you dont even know, excellent quality people here!
