«

Hi guys can anypone explain this statement to me?

> It seems that links on the site are
> getting a ?SID=xxx placed on them. Removing these from being listed
> will help the search engines hit your site better.


Thanks in advance

JohnT (admin)
www.designcrowd.com
Freelancers Freedom From Fees

"Design-Crowd" <> wrote

> Hi guys can anypone explain this statement to me?
>
> > It seems that links on the site are
> > getting a ?SID=xxx placed on them. Removing these from being listed
> > will help the search engines hit your site better.

&SID=xxx indicates that the targeted page is being generated (maybe) by a
server side process and therefore is a dynamic page.

Some search engines don't index dynamic pages.

SID also looks suspiciously like some server side script is using URL
variables instead of session cookies. SID usually means session id.

If this is so then it is a user problem. Instruct the user to allow session
cookies.

You are the "design crowd" and you don't know this? Oh my...

Thanks for the info rf
Not sure of your 'oh my god' comment though

I am a graphic designer and I run this site purely voluntary for the benefit
of the freelancers. Started out just a few but is growning rapidly to the
present 650 members. I am not a programmer nor do I understand any back end
work. Just asked for some information here thats all.

hope this helps
--
Regards
JohnT (admin)
www.designcrowd.com
Freelancers Freedom From Fees




"rf" <rf@.invalid> wrote in message
newsYkPd.157958$...
> "Design-Crowd" <> wrote
>
> > Hi guys can anypone explain this statement to me?
> >
> > > It seems that links on the site are
> > > getting a ?SID=xxx placed on them. Removing these from being listed
> > > will help the search engines hit your site better.
>
> &SID=xxx indicates that the targeted page is being generated (maybe) by a
> server side process and therefore is a dynamic page.
>
> Some search engines don't index dynamic pages.
>
> SID also looks suspiciously like some server side script is using URL
> variables instead of session cookies. SID usually means session id.
>
> If this is so then it is a user problem. Instruct the user to allow
session
> cookies.
>
> You are the "design crowd" and you don't know this? Oh my...
>
>
>

"Design-Crowd" <> wrote

Please learn how to post. Corrected this time only.

> Thanks for the info rf

Welcome.

> > You are the "design crowd" and you don't know this? Oh my...

> Not sure of your 'oh my god' comment though
> I am a graphic designer and I run this site purely voluntary for the
benefit
> of the freelancers. Started out just a few but is growning rapidly to the
> present 650 members. I am not a programmer nor do I understand any back
end
> work. Just asked for some information here thats all.

My apoligies. I have seen you here from time to time and assumed you were a
consortium of designers

Hmmm. Perhaps I should look into your stuff.

<looks/>

Ouch. Boilerplate blog with the standard *microscopic* font.

Why dont you simply leave the font size up to me? Oddly (as against the
million other similar sites out there) when I put the font size back to my
100% (like I like to read it at) your site is still quite usable.

Why do you so called dresizners cronically continue to ignore the users
preferances?

<checks with IE>

You have even specified the font size in pixels, or points, so IE users
can't resize the text without exercising their accessibility options to
ignore your font size.

How bloody stupid.

I am out of here, never to return, unless you fix this right now!

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 10:33:57 GMT rf wrote:

> "Design-Crowd" <> wrote

>> Hi guys can anypone explain this statement to me?

>> > It seems that links on the site are
>> > getting a ?SID=xxx placed on them. Removing these from being
>> listed
>> > will help the search engines hit your site better.

> &SID=xxx indicates that the targeted page is being generated (maybe) by
> a
> server side process and therefore is a dynamic page.

> Some search engines don't index dynamic pages.

> SID also looks suspiciously like some server side script is using URL
> variables instead of session cookies. SID usually means session id.

> If this is so then it is a user problem. Instruct the user to allow
> session
> cookies.

> You are the "design crowd" and you don't know this? Oh my...



There are many types of "designers" you stupid ignorant dipshit.

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 13:02:03 GMT rf wrote:

> "Design-Crowd" <> wrote

> Please learn how to post. Corrected this time only.

>> Thanks for the info rf

> Welcome.

>> > You are the "design crowd" and you don't know this? Oh my...

>> Not sure of your 'oh my god' comment though
>> I am a graphic designer and I run this site purely voluntary for the
> benefit
>> of the freelancers. Started out just a few but is growning rapidly to
>> the
>> present 650 members. I am not a programmer nor do I understand any
>> back
> end
>> work. Just asked for some information here thats all.

> My apoligies. I have seen you here from time to time and assumed you
> were a
> consortium of designers

> Hmmm. Perhaps I should look into your stuff.

> <looks/>

> Ouch. Boilerplate blog with the standard *microscopic* font.

> Why dont you simply leave the font size up to me? Oddly (as against the
> million other similar sites out there) when I put the font size back to
> my
> 100% (like I like to read it at) your site is still quite usable.

> Why do you so called dresizners cronically continue to ignore the users
> preferances?

> <checks with IE>

> You have even specified the font size in pixels, or points, so IE users
> can't resize the text without exercising their accessibility options to
> ignore your font size.

> How bloody stupid.

> I am out of here, never to return, unless you fix this right now!


Many sites do not incorporate font size probably because the author does not
know that font size can be changed.
So not being specified, the font size defaults to the smallest available.
Which means the user has to increase manually in order to read the site.
Whille 10pt fonts may be applicable to the print media, I generally prefer a
12pt or 14pt font, usually arial, which is more user friendly and easily
read.

"Richard" <Anonymous@127.001> wrote:

>Many sites do not incorporate font size probably because the author does not
>know that font size can be changed.

No, many sites _do_ incorporate font sizes precisely because the
author does not know that the font size can be changed. They see the
text in _their_ browser and think that it's too big, so they make it
smaller in their code instead of in their browser settings. Hence
making it too small for people who have their browser set up properly.

>So not being specified, the font size defaults to the smallest available.

Total rubbish. If no font size is specified then it defaults to
whatever the user's default is. Which would very rarely be the
smallest available. Go to a page that doesn't specify font size (such
as my home page) and see if you can make it smaller (CTL+- in FF,
View>Text Size>Smaller in IE) I bet that you can.

>Which means the user has to increase manually in order to read the site.

Usually because the author has set it too small, not because the
author hasn't set it.

If the user's browser has a default size that is too small for them
then they should change the default.

>Whille 10pt fonts may be applicable to the print media, I generally prefer a
>12pt or 14pt font, usually arial, which is more user friendly and easily
>read.

Then set that in your browser configuration or user stylesheet.
Personally I would find 12pt or 14pt too large (12pt = 16px with the
standard settings on Windows and is the factory default), I use 14px
(10.5pt to you) as a default in Opera with an enforced minimum of 12px
(9pt).

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <> <http://steve.pugh.net/>