Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Cordwainer Smith

"This site best viewed with anything but IE."

Recommended Posts

Know what... To have THAT statement posted on what I THOUGHT was a respectible and professional site... Is VERY unprofessional... And sort of childish.

*I* Use IE... If I were running an OS that did not have an embedded Browser, THEN I would use a different browser. But, I use IE cos it is part of my OS. As a matter of fact, I would probably use Opera, cos I like the interface... Or, I would use Sun Star Office.

But: I use IE cos of this windows XP I am running... and it works FINE.

And the SPAMCOP site looks just FINE.

Do the site designers ever look in these NG's and Forums? Cos THIS is bogus and unprofressional- And that statement should be REMOVED.

I don't think Julian would have gone around making statements like this ON A NATIONALLY AND INTERNATIONALLY VIEWED SITE- Even if he mirrored that sentiment:

"This site best viewed with anything but IE."

What UTTER BUNK!

Can we PLEASE get that REMOVED?

Oi Vey!

(Sorry for the vent, but this is just TOO MUCH!)

Edited by Cordwainer Smith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think Julian would have gone around making statements like this ON A NATIONALLY AND INTERNATIONALLY VIEWED SITE- Even if he mirrored that sentiment:

Sorry but Julian is the one that placed it there and is standing by it in this post copied from the newsgroups into the Lounge:

http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?...t=0entry12154

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that you seem interested in this aspect but MSIE is not embedded in Windows XP. MSIE is not required for XP nor are you obligated in any way what so ever to use MSIE with XP. You can use any browser with Windows XP as well as any other WinOS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"This site best viewed with anything but IE."

What UTTER BUNK!

Can we PLEASE get that REMOVED?

Can I second that please?

IE may not be the perfect browser, but it is used by a huge number of people, many of whom have no choice (corporate IT policy), or accept the minor limitations because most sites ARE optimised for IE.

Personally I prefer Mozilla, but can't use it because some sites I have to use professionally don't work with it.

I agree that this sort of comment looks very unprofessional. If you want Spamcop to be more widely used then it needs to become more, not less professional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do the site designers ever look in these NG's and Forums?

Yes, they do. And once in a while, will take a poster's suggestion. I haven't figured out why they accept some suggestions and not others. There is no dialogue in general.

Spamcop is directed toward people who are familiar with the internet and with the technical aspect of email. It would greatly forward the anti-spam fight if a modified version of spamcop were added for the non-technically fluent who want to *do* something about spam. However, that's an aspect that has never been adopted and never discussed by TPTB. The biggest concessions for non-technically fluent is the addition of the forum for questions and various coded 'safeguards' that irritate the techies.

Miss Betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Know what... To have THAT statement posted on what I THOUGHT was a respectible and professional site... Is VERY unprofessional... And sort of childish.

I find this annoying too. Maybe reword it to say "This page best viewed in Mozilla" or whatever. Although, I question the wisdom of designing a page that won't work properly with all browsers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Although, I question the wisdom of designing a page that won't work properly with all browsers.

Gee, why don't you mention that to all of the websites that design with IE only in mind. I get fed up with those quickly, since I prefer to use Mozilla. What really needs to be done is to design websites to the established standard. If certain browsers can't keep up, then that's their problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Although, I question the wisdom of designing a page that won't work properly with all browsers.

Gee, why don't you mention that to all of the websites that design with IE only in mind. I get fed up with those quickly, since I prefer to use Mozilla. What really needs to be done is to design websites to the established standard. If certain browsers can't keep up, then that's their problem.

I realize that IE vs Mozilla vs Opera, and Windows vs Linux vs Mac, etc are very important to some people, to the point that very heated debates start up. I don't think that's really necessary here. When I design a web page, I make sure it works in the major browsers properly. I don't really care about the underlying "religious" issues - I just want everyone to see my site properly; I don't care what browser they use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I realize that IE vs Mozilla vs Opera, and Windows vs Linux vs Mac, etc are very important to some people, to the point that very heated debates start up.  I don't think that's really necessary here.  When I design a web page, I make sure it works in the major browsers properly.  I don't really care about the underlying religious issues - I just want everyone to see my site properly; I don't care what browser they use.

Amen, Bruthuh, Amen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is MUCH better:

Copyright © 1998-2004 SpamCop.net, Inc., All rights reserved.

This site best viewed with a CSS2-compatible browser like Mozilla Firefox

.

That's great... Thank you for changing that.

Peace,

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hm, 132 plus responses over in the NG.

I did not realise what an issue this would stir up.

Anyway: I am accused of, of, er, "ruining" some kind of party- THIS is the response I get for trying to add brevity to this issue:

On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 22:25:28 -0500, Cat <nobody[at]devnull.spamcop.net> wrote:

>Cordwainer Smith wrote:

>

>> Sorry to have created a skirmish in here, I go away for a few days and

>> there is a virtual Flame War in here HAHAHA: I don't even need to read

>> the responses, hahaha.

>

>If you didn't bother to read the replies, then why do you automatically

>assume there was a flame war?

>

>> I want to thank anyone who agreed with me that having that on the

>> front page of the site was rather rude, even IF it is true:

>

>It really wasn't rude. It was a humorous comment that SpamCop's coding

>wouldn't work well with a crappy browser like IE, but thanks so much for

>ruining things for those of us who have a sense of humor instead of

>whining about such a silly issue.

WHY did I assume that the responses were some kind of FLAME WAR? Well, for one thing:

"but thanks so much for ruining things for those of us who have a sense of humor instead of whining about such a silly issue"

YES: You are welcome, skaghead. Some jokes, are NOT funny. This one was NOT. And your response right HERE, where I was trying to lighten this thing up a bit, proves that I can just assume that this was some kind of knock-down drag out- Cos YOU started swinging. Now, you, and the other people who post and read in here, don't really need to hear what I want to say to you, but I can abbreviate it by just saying, eff-off.

Again, I really thank Spamcop for changing this- It means a lot to ME. Thank you.

OH Yes: One last thing and I am done forever with this: The forum I POSTED this in, was the forum I wanted this post to be in. Let me make this clear: BEFORE I posted this in the main Spamcop forum, and the Newsgroup, I looked and looked and looked ALL around the site, for a PRIVATE email address for the webmaster. There was nothing like that, so I had no choice but to post it where I posted... Which was where I wanted it, because it was a Problem. Some people think that is is some damned joke but I am not laughing.

I took a chance and I sent a copy of my original post to "webmaster[at]spamcop.net" and also "admin[at]spamcop.net" - The admin address bounced. If I had a clear private email address to send this stuff to, I would NOT have posted it HERE and in the NG. I don't remember how long ago, but I could have sworn there was a link to contact the administrator of the site, who was Julian back then.

Anyway, that is all for me regarding this, again I truly apologise for "spoiling the party" or whatver the heck I did.

But I am gracious that the message was changed. THANK YOU very much.

This site is becoming more and more popular, and the

"common" people, the ones who don't know IE from Opera from Mozilla from a Hole in the Ground, need to be considered, and not confused.

Edited by Wazoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why you want to drag "debates" in the newsgroup over here (and I won't comment about the fact that you seemed to beg off over there as compared to this post for some reason) I can tell you for a fact (or maybe you know this) that the person you quoted doesn't spend time "here" ....

That you "wanted" to post your commentary in one Forum is fine. But you will note that what you commented upon had nothing specifically to do with "reporting problems with the SpamCop system" .... thus the justification for me to move it, additional pointers of these actions were posted to the Announcements Forum. You want to vent, I'm that target.

Webmaster might be a valid address, I have no idea. If you wanted to talk to Julian directly, there are addresses and even web-forms available. Of course, they are not plastered all over the place. How long do you think that InBox would last? Most of many "Help" screens include the normal triage point of Deputies to handle things that are outside the peer-to-peer level support issues. You might want to note that Julian carries a bit more heft than just "the administrator of the site" .. and as such, spends time doing all those other duties, thus the Deputy and peer-to-peer support plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is MUCH better:

Copyright © 1998-2004 SpamCop.net, Inc., All rights reserved.

This site best viewed with a CSS2-compatible browser like Mozilla Firefox

.

That's great... Thank you for changing that.

Peace,

J

...Hear, hear! :) <g>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hm, 132 plus responses over in the NG.

I did not realise what an issue this would stir up.

Anyway: I am accused of, of, er, "ruining" some kind of party- THIS is the response I get for trying to add brevity to this issue:

On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 22:25:28 -0500, Cat <nobody[at]devnull.spamcop.net> wrote:

>Cordwainer Smith wrote:

>

>> Sorry to have created a skirmish in here, I go away for a few days and

>> there is a virtual Flame War in here HAHAHA: I don't even need to read

>> the responses, hahaha.

>

>If you didn't bother to read the replies, then why do you automatically

>assume there was a flame war?

>

>> I want to thank anyone who agreed with me that having that on the

>> front page of the site was rather rude, even IF it is true:

>

>It really wasn't rude. It was a humorous comment that SpamCop's coding

>wouldn't work well with a crappy browser like IE, but thanks so much for

>ruining things for those of us who have a sense of humor instead of

>whining about such a silly issue.

<snip>

...IMHO, whomever flamed you should be totally ignored. One of the reasons I'm over here instead of in the ngs is that kind of unjustified rude behavior. It's not worth getting aggravated.

OH Yes: One last thing and I am done forever with this: The forum I POSTED this in, was the forum I wanted this post to be in. Let me make this clear: BEFORE I posted this in the main Spamcop forum, and the Newsgroup, I looked and looked and looked ALL around the site, for a PRIVATE email address for the webmaster. There was nothing like that, so I had no choice but to post it where I posted... Which was where I wanted it, because it was a Problem. Some people think that is is some damned joke but I am not laughing.

<snip>

...Not sure what the relationship is between someone thinking this is a joke and which web forum is the right one for this thread. You may have wanted this to be in the Help forum and if you could not find a better place to enter it that's fine but it's the SpamCop staff and their delegates, the forum moderators, who are the ones who get to decide the best place. In this case, as Wazoo explained, above, your topic did not have to do with SpamCop reporting and therefore does not belong in Help (although, given the alternatives, I don't believe that you can be reasonably criticized for selecting it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spamcop is directed toward people who are familiar with the internet and with the technical aspect of email.  It would greatly forward the anti-spam fight if a modified version of spamcop were added for the non-technically fluent who want to *do* something about spam.  However, that's an aspect that has never been adopted and never discussed by TPTB.  The biggest concessions for non-technically fluent is the addition of the forum for questions and various coded 'safeguards' that irritate the techies.

Miss Betsy

Maybe this is off-topic, but I personally think the SpamCop combined webmail / reporting system is pretty easy to use. (But I'm probably not a good judge of that.)

The biggest hurdles are if you want mail from somewhere else to get to Spamcop (you have to know how to forward from there or POP from here) and if you want to get mail from Spamcop to somewhere else (you have to know how to forward from here or POP from there). I suppose if you're a simple person who uses the ISP's email service, they set you up with an install package that configures Outlook (or whatever) to send and receive for you.

But beyond that, the default blocking/filtering options work fine for me and I just merrily report spam from my Held Mail folder (and occasionally from my Inbox). I feel like I've done something useful, rather than just tossing the spam into the bit-bucket.

So I think the Spamcop webmail service is straightforward enough to market to relatively non-technical users. The manual reporting stuff definitely is not.

???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×