M
mysticlighthouse
kc, I'm just calling it as I see it and there are others that have agreed. I welcome anyone to come to the forum and read ALL the replies in context.
If you read the replies in this thread, you'll notice that no one has said that a Flash-only site will never get listed, only that by having a Flash-only site you're:
(a) likely going to wait longer than a site that offers a non-Flash version because not everyone who might review your site has Flash, the bandwidth to wait for it to load, or a desire to view Flash (I personally usually leave Flash-only sites for someone else to review because it's too annoying for me to try to load them on my dial up connection -- at times like that, I might well be cursing the webmaster for not offering a non-Flash version).
(b) probably going to lose some potential customers who also might be looking for a web designer but don't want or don't have the resources to view a Flash-only site (not saying it'll be a ton of people but I'm sure you'll lose some). Still, as you say, that's your choice as a designer and really this aspect of it isn't germaine to you getting a listing in the ODP.
As has been said before, how you design your site is your business. All we can tell you is how that design might affect your waiting time for an ODP listing.
(a) likely going to wait longer than a site that offers a non-Flash version because not everyone who might review your site has Flash, the bandwidth to wait for it to load, or a desire to view Flash (I personally usually leave Flash-only sites for someone else to review because it's too annoying for me to try to load them on my dial up connection -- at times like that, I might well be cursing the webmaster for not offering a non-Flash version).
(b) probably going to lose some potential customers who also might be looking for a web designer but don't want or don't have the resources to view a Flash-only site (not saying it'll be a ton of people but I'm sure you'll lose some). Still, as you say, that's your choice as a designer and really this aspect of it isn't germaine to you getting a listing in the ODP.
As has been said before, how you design your site is your business. All we can tell you is how that design might affect your waiting time for an ODP listing.
As an aside, I *did* read all of the replies in that thread as well as all of the ones in this one and I think you're misreading the ones here. Yes, people are voicing their own personal opinions about Flash (and Flash-only sites in particular) but no one here has acted thuglike regarding your specific site or its ability to get listed...eventually.
I'm sitting here on a dialup line, from my own computer with my own valuable work on it. I volunteer to review sites, but _carefully_. I don't use known security holes, I don't download software, I don't accept cookies, I don't wait for sites that take a suspiciously long time to load, etc.
Flash requires a software download. It's a major security hole (not so much in itself, but because it runs under IE as ActiveX, and ActiveX is the universe's largest virus vector); and it nearly always takes forever to download (compared to an html skeleton, which can display even while the graphic bits are still trudging down the line). That's three out of four in the "rogue's gallery" of evil things webmasters do. Don't call _me_ a thug because I don't invite your goons into my living room! You can wait in the dark, or go look for an editor who doesn't mind losing everything on their hard drive to a malicious site. [Note: I'm not calling your site malicious; I'm merely saying it is dressed up to look like a malicious site.]
Flash requires a software download. It's a major security hole (not so much in itself, but because it runs under IE as ActiveX, and ActiveX is the universe's largest virus vector); and it nearly always takes forever to download (compared to an html skeleton, which can display even while the graphic bits are still trudging down the line). That's three out of four in the "rogue's gallery" of evil things webmasters do. Don't call _me_ a thug because I don't invite your goons into my living room! You can wait in the dark, or go look for an editor who doesn't mind losing everything on their hard drive to a malicious site. [Note: I'm not calling your site malicious; I'm merely saying it is dressed up to look like a malicious site.]
M
mysticlighthouse
hutcheson,
you're not saying that I have a malicious site, but it's dressed up to look like one? So the majority of flash sites are malicious?
About the dial-up issue... you're in the DFW metro area, I have friends there and I know that it doesn't cost much for high speed. Since you're on the internet a lot (at least I gather that since you are an editor here at DMOZ) I would think it would be advantageous to switch to high speed. But once again it is your choice what you use and I don't force you to go to one over the other.
If you feel that most flash sites could be malicious (because of the active x technology), I'm sorry to hear that. I am a serious developer and have no desire to harm anyone's computer or information.
you're not saying that I have a malicious site, but it's dressed up to look like one? So the majority of flash sites are malicious?
About the dial-up issue... you're in the DFW metro area, I have friends there and I know that it doesn't cost much for high speed. Since you're on the internet a lot (at least I gather that since you are an editor here at DMOZ) I would think it would be advantageous to switch to high speed. But once again it is your choice what you use and I don't force you to go to one over the other.
If you feel that most flash sites could be malicious (because of the active x technology), I'm sorry to hear that. I am a serious developer and have no desire to harm anyone's computer or information.
It is not your own morality that is in question.
Think of it like this. You're the postman, and you're bringing me a postcard. I'd ordinarily like to look at it. But you tell me, "No, you can't just look at it. I have to put it in your house." Well, I'll trust you to carry it in, but you tell me, "No, I can't do it that way. I have to remove the entire side wall and roof of the house, and carry it in through the gaping hole." And you tell me I need to leave it that way in case I ever want to look at the post card again. And you look at me all funny when I start muttering about burglars and rainstorms, and take offence because you are neither a burglar or a cumulonimbus cloud. Tough; I'll keep my house walls on, and if that means forever missing your postcard, I'll live with it.
And I think anyone who opens their house up like that, just on your say-so, no matter how honest you seem, is insane.
Think of it like this. You're the postman, and you're bringing me a postcard. I'd ordinarily like to look at it. But you tell me, "No, you can't just look at it. I have to put it in your house." Well, I'll trust you to carry it in, but you tell me, "No, I can't do it that way. I have to remove the entire side wall and roof of the house, and carry it in through the gaping hole." And you tell me I need to leave it that way in case I ever want to look at the post card again. And you look at me all funny when I start muttering about burglars and rainstorms, and take offence because you are neither a burglar or a cumulonimbus cloud. Tough; I'll keep my house walls on, and if that means forever missing your postcard, I'll live with it.
And I think anyone who opens their house up like that, just on your say-so, no matter how honest you seem, is insane.
If one doesn't have that much than it's too much.
As of June 2003 less then 37% of Internet users in the US have highspeed access in their homes.
No one here is telling you to not use Flash, it is your choice. You are just getting feedback on why users don't like flash and why they would prefer to not visit a site that is Flash-designed. In this case the feedback is directly related to having your site re-reviewed for its content and how long it might take for that to happen. You might not like their choice in not wanting to review your Flash site anymore than they like reviewing a Flash driven site. Since everyone here is a volunteer, they do have a choice on what they will or will not review.
I'm sure someone will come along who doesn't mind reviewing a Flash driven site or has the time to spend reviewing your site. You will just have to be patient.
I don't use Flash either. There are a half-dozen unreviewed sites scattered throughout the categories I edit, waiting for review by someone other than me. Since there are very few other unreviewed sites in those categories, it may be a very long time before anyone else checks in on them, as other editors assume from my frequent updates that the categories are well-tended.
Please don't confuse a *descriptive* warning with a *prescriptive* warning. We're not saying "don't use Flash or we'll punish you by making sure your site takes extra months to review." We're saying "If your site has unskippable Flash, it will likely take extra months to review." Your site is not being punished, but the nature of its design causes it to be inaccessible to certain users. If editors are among those users, you need to expect that will slow your review down considerably. There are good reasons for people not to want to install Flash on their computers, and editors are not required to do so.
I don't know what exactly your philosophical objection is to a "skip the Flash intro" button on the bottom of the first page, as so many good sites do; but it's your prerogative to design your site however you like. Just be aware that that's going to make it non-search-engine-friendly, non-editor-friendly, and in some cases non-user-friendly.
Please don't confuse a *descriptive* warning with a *prescriptive* warning. We're not saying "don't use Flash or we'll punish you by making sure your site takes extra months to review." We're saying "If your site has unskippable Flash, it will likely take extra months to review." Your site is not being punished, but the nature of its design causes it to be inaccessible to certain users. If editors are among those users, you need to expect that will slow your review down considerably. There are good reasons for people not to want to install Flash on their computers, and editors are not required to do so.
I don't know what exactly your philosophical objection is to a "skip the Flash intro" button on the bottom of the first page, as so many good sites do; but it's your prerogative to design your site however you like. Just be aware that that's going to make it non-search-engine-friendly, non-editor-friendly, and in some cases non-user-friendly.
>If you feel that most flash sites could be malicious (because of the active x technology),
You're still completely missing the point. All Flash sites COULD be malicious -- nothing is stopping them. We all know most of them aren't. The point is that they ALL require us to open up our computers to malicious sites!
Are most sites malicious? No. But I've reviewed something like 50,000 sites. If just one in 10,000 sites had malicious intent and chose to exercise it by driving through the hole that activating Flash made in my computer ... do the math. And I can tell you from my own experience that more than 1 in submitted 10,000 sites ARE malicious.
But, knowing this, you persist in demanding that your visitors open themselves up to malicious sites. What does that make you?
You're still completely missing the point. All Flash sites COULD be malicious -- nothing is stopping them. We all know most of them aren't. The point is that they ALL require us to open up our computers to malicious sites!
Are most sites malicious? No. But I've reviewed something like 50,000 sites. If just one in 10,000 sites had malicious intent and chose to exercise it by driving through the hole that activating Flash made in my computer ... do the math. And I can tell you from my own experience that more than 1 in submitted 10,000 sites ARE malicious.
But, knowing this, you persist in demanding that your visitors open themselves up to malicious sites. What does that make you?
M
mysticlighthouse
Flicker,
there is no skip intro because the site is entirely in flash. I may have plans in the future for an XHTML/CSS layout for an alternative, but that will have to wait.
The whole intent of starting this thread was to ascertain why my site had been bumped to basic from full service. Not a thorough lecture on the evils of flash.
there is no skip intro because the site is entirely in flash. I may have plans in the future for an XHTML/CSS layout for an alternative, but that will have to wait.
The whole intent of starting this thread was to ascertain why my site had been bumped to basic from full service. Not a thorough lecture on the evils of flash.
M
mysticlighthouse
hutcheson,
now you imply that I'm a bad person just because "I am demanding my visitors to open themselves up to malicious sites." ????
Obviously with the following line
I'm not demanding anything, if they don't want to come to the site then they don't have to. It is up to them. They can easily hit the back button just like all of you have.
now you imply that I'm a bad person just because "I am demanding my visitors to open themselves up to malicious sites." ????
Obviously with the following line
that isn't meant to calm anyone or be kind in the least
I'm not demanding anything, if they don't want to come to the site then they don't have to. It is up to them. They can easily hit the back button just like all of you have.
I believe that this thread has run its course and drifted far off topic. To paraphrase the original question, "Will you consider moving my submission back to the full service web design category?". Answer "No." Asked and answered.
Call me crazy,
but this forum does not seem like the most appropriate place to debate the pros and cons of Flash.
Call me crazy,
but this forum does not seem like the most appropriate place to debate the pros and cons of Flash.
M
mysticlighthouse
I agree with you, xixtas, that the pros and cons of flash don't really have a place here.
Thank you for your polite and concise answer to my original question. Although it is not the answer I had hoped, it was dealt to me in a nice manner and I appreciate that.
Thank you for your polite and concise answer to my original question. Although it is not the answer I had hoped, it was dealt to me in a nice manner and I appreciate that.
The second part was actually meant to be helpful too, you know. "It probably will not be moved back where it was nor re-considered swiftly because it's Flash-only and not everyone is obliged to use that; if you added some HTML content you might have a better chance of getting what you want." You're under no obligation to make any changes to your site; however, to -some- webmasters it -would- be valuable information to know that that option might help them with directory and search engine indexing.
If it's not valuable to you, then no harm no foul, right?
If it's not valuable to you, then no harm no foul, right?
Mysticlighthouse,
that your submission is waiting in Basic Service and not in Full Service as you'd like to is largely due to the fact that the submission instructions have not been followed. This site has apparently been submitted to at least three different categories, and the submission guidelines clearly state "Please check to be sure that this is the single category you think your site should be listed in."
Especially in very backlogged areas like Computers/Internet editors might proceed by quick sorting misplaced submissions to what seems to be the most appropriate category, and when facing multiple submissions they might delete all but one on sight (closest guess as well).
You could have spared us a lot of work and time, and yourself some frustration just by following the guidelines. It is within the realm of possible that whoever reviews your site in Basic Service will decide that it should better be listed in Full Service and send it there to be reviewed again.
The Flash 'problem' should not prevent your site from being listed, it just makes things more difficult. Not your fault, you don't design for being listed in the ODP, but the way you think is best for your business. Not our fault as well, editors have other constraints as discussed here.
I'd just like to add that I like good Flash sites, most probably because I edit a lot in Photography related categories where the information is primarily visual, and some Flash-only sites offer really good content. FWIW, as a user I do have to say that your site is really very slow compared to several others I've seen, and this doesn't seem to be related to loading times only (xDSL connection here).
that your submission is waiting in Basic Service and not in Full Service as you'd like to is largely due to the fact that the submission instructions have not been followed. This site has apparently been submitted to at least three different categories, and the submission guidelines clearly state "Please check to be sure that this is the single category you think your site should be listed in."
Especially in very backlogged areas like Computers/Internet editors might proceed by quick sorting misplaced submissions to what seems to be the most appropriate category, and when facing multiple submissions they might delete all but one on sight (closest guess as well).
You could have spared us a lot of work and time, and yourself some frustration just by following the guidelines. It is within the realm of possible that whoever reviews your site in Basic Service will decide that it should better be listed in Full Service and send it there to be reviewed again.
The Flash 'problem' should not prevent your site from being listed, it just makes things more difficult. Not your fault, you don't design for being listed in the ODP, but the way you think is best for your business. Not our fault as well, editors have other constraints as discussed here.
I'd just like to add that I like good Flash sites, most probably because I edit a lot in Photography related categories where the information is primarily visual, and some Flash-only sites offer really good content. FWIW, as a user I do have to say that your site is really very slow compared to several others I've seen, and this doesn't seem to be related to loading times only (xDSL connection here).
384/128k DSL here.
Under IE6 sp1 XP sp1 (patches all current) it's nice and fast for me.
It's a little slower on Opera 7.11 but still not bad. In Opera, maybe 2 seconds to load content, and then a little jerkiness in the wipes. Other than that, it's just fine.
Under IE6 sp1 XP sp1 (patches all current) it's nice and fast for me.
It's a little slower on Opera 7.11 but still not bad. In Opera, maybe 2 seconds to load content, and then a little jerkiness in the wipes. Other than that, it's just fine.
M
mysticlighthouse
Senox,
what categories has it been tried to be listed in?
knovinc said he moved it to http://dmoz.org/Regional/North_America/United_States/North_Carolina/Localities/C/Charlotte/Business_and_Economy/Internet/Web_Design_and_Development/ and said that a regional listing should not affect my site's listing in another higher, more top-level category.
So as far as I know it should only be there and in basic.
what categories has it been tried to be listed in?
knovinc said he moved it to http://dmoz.org/Regional/North_America/United_States/North_Carolina/Localities/C/Charlotte/Business_and_Economy/Internet/Web_Design_and_Development/ and said that a regional listing should not affect my site's listing in another higher, more top-level category.
So as far as I know it should only be there and in basic.
At the moment those 2 categories are correct.
Previously it was submitted to other Computers categories.
Don't be concerned about it, that's now in the past.
The Regional listing should appear on the public pages soon if not already there, the Topical listing is waiting to be reviewed. As mentioned above if it is found to better fit in Full Service (based on the services offered on the site at the time it is reviewed) it will be moved there at that time.
Please be aware that we cannot afford to set a precedent by reviewing your site ahead of others merely because you asked in this forum. If we did so it would soon become useless as we became bombarded with 'please list my site' requests [Actually Id expect them to be more demands than requests].
Previously it was submitted to other Computers categories.
Don't be concerned about it, that's now in the past.
The Regional listing should appear on the public pages soon if not already there, the Topical listing is waiting to be reviewed. As mentioned above if it is found to better fit in Full Service (based on the services offered on the site at the time it is reviewed) it will be moved there at that time.
Please be aware that we cannot afford to set a precedent by reviewing your site ahead of others merely because you asked in this forum. If we did so it would soon become useless as we became bombarded with 'please list my site' requests [Actually Id expect them to be more demands than requests].
M
mysticlighthouse
Totally understand and don't expect to be reviewed ahead of anyone else. Thanks for checking on the listings gimmster.