http://www.cozybabysling.com

Just wondered if someone could check the status of this site I submitted to this category: http://dmoz.org/Shopping/Children/Baby/Equipment/Carriers/Slings/
Does the category have an editor?

The category doesn't have its own editor, but it's looked after from time to time by an editor from one of the parent categories. At the moment, there's a handfull of submissions waiting for review in that category. However I can't check whether your submission has arrived there, as I don't have editing privileges in that part of the directory. But if it has arrived, it hasn't been touched yet.

There's a way to speed up your listing - it's written on the lower left of the category page: "Become an editor". <img src="/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

Note that your site http://www.cozybabysling.com/ can't be viewed with Netscape 4.75. This is no reason for non-listing, but just something I think you should know.

The site is quite visible in Mozilla 1.1, but I would refuse to list it as it attempts to force a download of a DLL to my machine. Once again this doesn't affect your site's qualification for a listing, it's just my opinion.

Hmmm, it didn't on my machine, dfy.

I just tried again, and it passed me rbd_isapi.dll.

I'm using Mozilla 1.1, with preferences set to alert me if a site attempts to force a download. MSIE users would probably never get a warning, and it would just be installed, whatever it is.

The relevant part of the source is:

&lt;!----------begin banner stub---------&gt;

&lt;iframe NORESIZE="NORESIZE" FRAMEBORDER="0" WIDTH=468 HEIGHT=60 MARGINWIDTH="0" MARGINHEIGHT="0" SCROLLING="NO" SRC="http://demo-voip.rodopi.com/rbd/rbd_isapi.dll?DistID=55"&gt;
&lt;/iframe&gt;
&lt;ILAYER WIDTH=468 HEIGHT=60 &gt;
&lt;LAYER SRC="http://demo-voip.rodopi.com/rbd/rbd_isapi.dll?DistID=55"&gt;
&lt;/LAYER&gt;
&lt;/ILAYER&gt;
&lt;!----------end banner stub---------&gt;

I'm guessing that it's some sort of ad snooper.

&lt;add&gt;
On second thoughts, maybe it's something to do with the payment system. Either way, I refuse to accept any downloads from any site, and I would also refuse to list such a site. But that's my own policy, it is not the standard policy of dmoz.org.
&lt;/add&gt;

I was invited to this forum post (thank you) as I am at the top of /Children and have done a lot of the work in the sling cat in the past.

I don't accept anything downloaded from a site either, but it still allows me to hit cancel and I can still view the site anyway although the warning pops up at each page. From an end-user point of view, if I were the consumer, it really is kind of annoying if it was me I probably would close the site and move on to ordering elsewhere. I do understand dfy's point completely and if I couldn't view the site adequately I probably wouldn't add it because I won't compromise my computer. Because I can view this site (although it might just my computer ignorance that lets me feel safe hitting "cancel") I would list if the contents add something to this section.

On another note, for this site's webmaster...I couldn't view the site in Netscape 4.73 (I probably need to update, I don't use Netscape but rarely)--it only partially loads. I got the popup in Mozilla with a warning, but no warning in Explorer which I take to mean whatever is being downloaded is probably already on my computer in regards to Explorer.

As for how long it will be, hopefully not much longer. We got a new editor in Shopping/Children/Baby and either she or I will likely get to it soon.

Lin/"kokopeli"

&gt;&gt;I'm guessing that it's some sort of ad snooper.

&lt;add&gt;
On second thoughts, maybe it's something to do with the payment system. &lt;&lt;

It looks like it's the code for the ad banner at the top of the pages.

I am aware of this happening on some peoples browsers, it has to do with the banner that my web hosting puts at the top. I have contacted them, but they seem to think they don't need to do anything about it. I am on the lookout for better web-hosting service, but on a tight budget. I'd be happy to hear any recommendations for that if anyone has one. Thanks for looking at my site though!

Thanks for the reply. I also am aware that it is not viewable in netscape. I'm not sure why, but I've been told not to worry about that since not too many people still use netscape (I don't know if that's true or not). I too agree that the pop-up download thing is annoying and a deterrant for customers. I don't think it has anything to do with the payment process (as one reply stated), since I am just using paypal for that, but I'm obviously not a pro in that area, so I'm just guessing that paypal would not create that type of problem. I am on the look-out for new webhosting service. Thanks so much for your time and consideration, it is greatly appreciated!!!

It was me that guessed it might be something to do with payment. That's because I went to rodopi.com, the source of the file, and it talks about credit card processing. As I say, it was just a wild guess.

&gt;I'm not sure why, but I've been told not to worry about that since not too many people still use netscape

That is probably true. I know that _I_ don't review sites that I can't view with Netscape. (ODP rules say an editor doesn't have to list sites they're not comfortable with. _I'm_ not comfortable shilling for the orcs of Redmond.) Other editors have different pain levels.

Are you just using Rodopi (actually, I guess it's probably A Plus that you're using) for your web hosting? Not for any payment processing or shopping cart or anything like that? If so, there are a lot of really good, low priced web hosts ($10 or less/month) around who don't put banners like that on web pages.

motsa, Yes I do have aplus and am really not happy with their service. Could you recommend someone else - there are so many out there.
Thanks

Just an FYI - this is what my web hosting tech support had to say about it:

"I'm not quite sure what this site editor is even saying. What dll, and what does Mozilla have to do with it? He also seems to be contradicting himself when he says he would refuse to list it, then he turns right around and says it doesn't affect the site's qualification for listing. Can you find out what dll the site seems to be trying to download?

The problem with Netscape 4.x is supposed to have been fixed yesterday. If you know anyone who is still getting an error, have them clear their web browser's cache and try the site again. Please let me know if they are still having trouble with it after clearing their cache.

Regards,

Technical Support Manager
Aplus Net "

What mozilla has to do with it, is that it falls into one of the growing group of browsers best described as "not MicroSoft Internet Explorer". It refuses to silently download the file (rbd_isapi.dll) that is contained within the iframe at the top of your page. This is because most non-MicroSoft companies understand the concept of security.

When I say that I won't list it, but the problem doesn't affect it's qualification for listing, I mean just that. As an individual, I would refuse to list your site, but other editors may feel differently. Since the file download isn't against any rules we have at the ODP, they may decide it merits a listing.

Right now (10:03 UTC 1st November 2002) I wouldn't list it because it isn't resolving.

I had the same problem than dfy yesterday when trying to connect to your site. Quoting from the guidelines : " The site should load in a reasonable time and be consistently available." If this is not the case, then it can be rejected.

The attempt to force a download is not necessarily a reason to reject a site. But no editor has to accept such a download. If I don't know what it does (maybe it pops-up a thousand ads, redirects to an adult site etc.) I can not properly review the site, and I'll therefore leave it in the unreviewed queue for someone else to check. It may take quite a while before an editor is willing to do so, but eventually your site will be listed if it qualifies.

<img src="/images/icons/smirk.gif" alt="" />

Could you recommend someone else - there are so many out there.

Click to expand...

Send me feedback through my DMOZ profile page (click on my name at the bottom of this message to go there) and I'll give you some ideas. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

Um, I think the DLL thing is a server configuration issue. At one time all www.microsoft.com URLs went through http://www.microsoft.com/redir/isapi.dll?blahblahblah - the .dll file is a file on the server that is executed by the server software.

This would imply that the server is using MS IIS, which may be sending a bogus MIME header. IE probably just accepts it and displays the page, whereas Mozilla, Netscape and other Gecko based browsers question it. The thing to do would be to download the DLL file when asked (but not to run it); if you get a load of HTML then it's a badly configured server, otherwise it may be a trojan horse.

By the way, the next version of the AOL Browser is based on Gecko, so if I were you I'd make Netscape compatibility more of a priority.

&gt;&gt; I think the DLL thing is a server configuration issue &lt;&lt;

I don't think so. The DLL that is forced on us is located on a completely different server. It's more likely a deliberate attempt by an ad agency to replace your own local copy of isapi.dll with their doctored version.

You know, there are days when one is REALLY glad one runs Mozilla.