18 replies to this topic

[irked]

Something to consider before posting in this "review my website"...

I posted a thread on this forum to please review my site. I received two responses - one was to scold me for not having "osCommerce" displayed on my site. The other was nice, but limited in its usefulness.

That's all OK - BUT, the link got picked up by google. Now, when you google my web site name, the osCommerce thread comes up and basically advertises to the world that I am a new site. This has caused at least three buyers (that I know of) to find another more established store. This site is now my livlihood and I really need it to work.

I have subsequently sent a message to each moderator and BEGGED him or her to please remove my thread. Only one moderator has even bothered to respond and he has informed me that he has absolutely no intention of removing my thread or helping me out.

I really love the software and deeply and sincerely appreciate all of the help and guidance that people have given me along the way. However, I have to question the moderators of this board for not helping me out with this situation.

So.... just to help some other traveler along the way. Think twice before posting in this section!

[germ]

If you phrase your site link like:

m y s i t e DOT c o m

Instead of:

http://mysite.com

It probably won't be picked up in searches for your site.


Google crawls this site 24/7/365 so anyone who doesn't want what they post here on this forum to show up in searches need to be careful about direct. corrrectly formatted links.

[irked]

germ, on Jan 4 2009, 08:54 PM, said:

If you phrase your site link like:

m y s i t e DOT c o m

Instead of:

http://mysite.com

It probably won't be picked up in searches for your site.


Google crawls this site 24/7/365 so anyone who doesn't want what they post here on this forum to show up in searches need to be careful about direct. corrrectly formatted links.

That's good advice, Jim. I hope, going forward others can learn from that advice.

What I fail to understand, however, is what harm would be done in deleting my thread now. There is virtually no useful information in the thread that anyone can learn from.

I made a mistake, I've learned from it - so, can't we just go forward and make it so my business does not continue to be punished as a result?

[toneus]

On the bright side, Google will include it as a link back to your site, thereby increasing your ranking and thereby raising your site more highly in the search terms you're really interested in. Every cloud as they say.

Personally I found the feedback given here of great use.

[GemRock]

irked, on Jan 4 2009, 08:30 PM, said:

...Now, when you google my web site name, the osCommerce thread comes up and basically advertises to the world that I am a new site...

that is hardly any problem at all! you could continue to post your site here and say your business has had a history of 100 years (could be more - up to you!) now just doing a revemping of the site to keep up with modern world, bla bla bla...probem solved
Ken

ps, people seldom search by a site name. if they know the name they rather type it in the address bar. people search by "keywords", or the subject they are interested in.

Edited by GemRock, 27 June 2009, 21:57.

[14steve14]

If someone is asking for feedback and i have to spend too long sorting out the link, i just dont bother giving feedback. If people cant be bother to post a link, why should i give feedback.

[Biancoblu]

Surely, if posting a link becomes a prerequisite to receive feedback, the moderators will edit the feedback forum rules accordingly.

Honestly though, how long does it take exactly to "sort out" a link? the same time it takes to type it I'd say.

[14steve14]

Quote

Honestly though, how long does it take exactly to "sort out" a link? the same time it takes to type it I'd say.

I would say just a bit longer than it takes to leave a link in the first place.

[persichini]

14steve14, on 16 October 2009, 18:00, said:

I would say just a bit longer than it takes to leave a link in the first place.

Problem is i put the spaces in and google still picked it up... might not help that in someones response they wrote out the full web address

[Ben Nevis]

I sympathise with irked.

But instant recognition on Google doesn't strike me as all bad

[burt]

"But instant recognition on Google doesn't strike me as all bad"

I don't know about that - some shop owners have made some very, very foolish comments in this forum. The type of comment that could make potential buyers look elsewhere.

[dcphosting]

The story goes deeper and deeper about posting on the internet. I can find virtually every single post or comment I have ever submitted to yet still existing sites over the years. It does help knowing the various nom de plumes I've used. On the other hand for learning more about an individual; usernames and other much more important information is learned through internet search.

Finding a trail of posts by an individual is often not that hard, especially if there is little or no attempt at subterfuge. Learning about the techs at your isp, webhost, or software publisher is often accomplished through searching out student tech and other brainiac forums. Glean info from posts and profiles. It is often surprising the tidbits found here and there and how they can tie together. (It does get tricky when there are 14 individuals with the same name all possessing a doctorate in computer science. I rarely spend the time after this point.) Often the student now tech worker uses the same username or had tied a real name and other info to the puzzle.

I began limiting and shaping content of my posts several years ago after realizing future potential. When I do have questions - especially when it comes to server / site / script security, they are often asked by a new / temporary me who can be traced only through the power of subpoena. I have nothing to hide by using a new, temporary me. I am never vile or otherwise distasteful. I just don't what anyone to know what I do or don't know. Or when stating a piece of software does something other than advertised, I fear retaliation from criminals could get personal.

I lamely attempt to use the power of limiting and shaping content to create a professional profile. I try hardest at keeping stupid stuff out. (My Facebook account is NOT linked. [Facebook is prohibited on this machine: but that's another story] Keeping professional and personal separate is very important.) I ask HTML5 styling questions as my long term alter ego in another forum. HTML5 isn't even thought to be an official recommendation until sometime in 2022. I discuss software at yet another forum with the same alter ego as here. I try and keep the easily traceable posts painting an appropriate picture. At first draft, a post may not be fit for public consumption. The released version is prim and proper, hopefully. Looking at everything from the biggest picture possible is the key to internet relations.

There is always another perspective to your post: Add time to your equation and the offending post will be 5 years old, a badge of longevity.

[Juto]

Hi, the requirement "...and have the "Powered by osCommerce" text displayed on the site..." quite odd, since it's also stated that:

/*
The following copyright announcement can only be appropriately modified or removed if the layout of
the site theme has been modified to distinguish itself from the default osCommerce-copyrighted theme.
For more information please read the following Frequently Asked Questions entry on the osCommerce support site:

.....

Please leave this comment intact together with the following copyright announcement.
*/

Which can be found in the footer.php

If this copyright announcement isn't valid for "Feedback on My Store", than I'm sorry, I will not post links to the stores I developed.

I am quite sure that my stores are the only ones which is fully w3c-validated, both front- and backend.

Also, I have corrected a lot of code and written some new (to replace old snippets).

A list of what I have done could be fairly long.

One thing I have avoided, is extensive use of "contributions" (in use are approx. 4-5) and of course any form of templates (one can do it with css).

Kind regards

Sara

Edited by Juto, 14 June 2010, 06:48.

[BryceJr]

Juto, on 14 June 2010, 06:46, said:

Hi, the requirement "...and have the "Powered by osCommerce" text displayed on the site..." quite odd, since it's also stated that:

/*
The following copyright announcement can only be appropriately modified or removed if the layout of
the site theme has been modified to distinguish itself from the default osCommerce-copyrighted theme.
For more information please read the following Frequently Asked Questions entry on the osCommerce support site:

.....

Please leave this comment intact together with the following copyright announcement.
*/

Which can be found in the footer.php

If this copyright announcement isn't valid for "Feedback on My Store", than I'm sorry, I will not post links to the stores I developed.
...

Kind regards

Sara

You got confused by the requirement. The text "Powered by osCommerce" is a separate text from the copyright statement(Copyright 2008 osCommerce) that you see in front of every oscommerce store. The text "Powered by osCommerce" is NOT the copyright statement.

The text "Powered by osCommerce" is optional and maybe displayed and/or removed anytime without violating osCommerce copyright.

With that said, this is NOT a copyright issue. It is a FEEDBACK matter.

If you want feedback, the text "Powered by osCommerce" must be displayed whether your store looks similar to the osCommerce default theme or have been significantly altered or modified.

If you believe that you have received ample feedback from the community after some time has passed, you may remove the text "Powered by osCommerce" from your store(s) and make a post saying you don't wish to receive additional feedback and thank the community for taking their time in giving you feedback.

Edited by BryceJr, 15 June 2010, 12:02.

[Juto]

BryceJr, on 15 June 2010, 12:00, said:

You got confused by the requirement.

Yes you are right, later on I realized that the requirement statement for <i>this</i> forum is valid ONLY for <i>this</i> forum.

It's not the official requirement.

You should know, however, that by telling the world that the shop is built on OScommerce, hackers and the like know how to hack.

Thus I emphasize, I will not ever fulfill the requirement and for the sites I build I will thus never ask for feedback.

The users of this forum thus misses the chance to se what I design, and the opportunity to ask questions.

For example, how my css buttons are coded with the silk icons, what bugs I have found and removed... what security solutions I have (and where to test) ... etc.

Kind regards
Sara

[GrantMVP]

A common technique to avoid this problem is to use TinyURL to create an alias link to your domain

[kohalabill]

I have a little problem with the rule of having the powered by osCommerce enabled. I had it enabled originally and I noticed a large amount of Hacker attempts. I feel fairly confident that I have my site buttoned down now, but I have come to find out that the powered by osCommerce is a keyword that hackers scan for when crawling sites to find potential victims. This is because of the default production version installations being so vulnerable. I would say that if you were to include the various security fixes, that several of the add-on's address, then this wouldn't be as much of an issue. Along with that you should also place security issues and problems as number one on your priority list. Just try to create a site that has cc processing then use your google credits and watch them hack. From what I understand, even if you have your admin directory renamed, .htaccess permissions applied there are still CSS vulnerabilities that aren't addressed, isn't this true? I would love to post and receive input about my site (I've put alot of time and effort and I am proud of what I have accomplished so far), but I am really worried about the holes and attention I would receive.

KohalaBill

[DunWeb]

Bill,

To date, I don't believe there are any known vulnerabilities with v2.3.1



(someone can correct me if I am wrong)



Chris

[kohalabill]

DunWeb, on 17 August 2011, 01:09, said:

Bill,

To date, I don't believe there are any known vulnerabilities with v2.3.1



(someone can correct me if I am wrong)



Chris

Thank you Chris, that may answer some of my other questions! I may have to uninstall that Security Pro by FWR Media and I just saw another osc_sec, but I realized that is for 2.2. Okay well I did put the powered by back up on my site! Think I'll resubmit my site for review.
Better Safe than sorry! heh