Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

burt

Look what Google are doing...

Recommended Posts

 

 

Wow.  They are pretty much telling people to go "mobile friendly or else"...

 

Good thing ?

Bad thing ?

 

 


Help shape the future of Phoenix; join the Phoenix Club

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Thing as I see it - people browsing on mobile devices only really want to be shown mobile friendly sites in the search results - or at least placed higher than non-responsive sites.

 

Sensible thing to do IMHO

 

:)


Now running on a fully modded, Mobile Friendly 2.3.4 Store with the Excellent MTS installed - See my profile for the mods installed ..... So much thanks for all the help given along the way by forum members.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also got one of those emails. I was planning on upgrading when osCommerce 2.4 comes out. So @@burt, any idea how soon that's going to be? Should I wait or go to the community 2.3.4BS version now?

 

Regards

Jim


See my profile for a list of my addons and ways to get support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at how far we've come in the last 12 months.  

That should be enough to make the decision for you.

 

If you need more convincing;  

 

2.4 when it arrives, will be based on the 2.3.x.bs series with lots more optimisation of code.


Help shape the future of Phoenix; join the Phoenix Club

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somehow I thought that's what you'd say. I guess I can use it to learn more Bootstrap and build some new addons.

 

Another project. All I needed....

 

Regards

Jim


See my profile for a list of my addons and ways to get support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is my personal site. It doesn't generate any income. The content is only there for my personal use, so I really don't care what Google (or anybody else) thinks about it. I don't view it on a phone, so I really don't care if it's responsive. The only justification that I have, other than to make it suitable for my personal use, is to learn from it.

 

Good thing I enjoy learning.

 

Regards

Jim


See my profile for a list of my addons and ways to get support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@@kymation. when you seriously test, you go say......"Why they didnt do that earlyer" .

 

So... kick yourself under your ass, stop excusing and let your fingers move. (your cliënts will go apreciate your time spended on it, infact....@the end yougain from it cause will have more time left over ;) .... that easy osC is going to be)......Click Click.......HUHHHHHHHH........DONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is my personal site. It doesn't generate any income. The content is only there for my personal use, so I really don't care what Google (or anybody else) thinks about it. I don't view it on a phone, so I really don't care if it's responsive. The only justification that I have, other than to make it suitable for my personal use, is to learn from it.

 

Good thing I enjoy learning.

 

Regards

Jim

Hi Jim. @@kymation

 

Not only will you be learning Jim, but you'll also be helping to move osC forward and as a result helping many other users of osC in the process -- and I'm sure I'll be one of those.     We need guys like you and appreciate all the effort you put into helping osC be the best it can be. :thumbsup:

 

Dan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@@wHiTeHaT  Testing has nothing to do with my personal site. I have dozens of test sites for that, and I test osCommerce installs all the time. I already have a couple of 2.3.4BS test sites set up to play with it, and to finish the development of some Bootstrap modules. That reminds me, I need to finish Theme Switcher for Bootstrap and release it. So many projects....

 

@@Dan Cole  I'm working on it. Honest.

 

Regards

Jim


See my profile for a list of my addons and ways to get support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, it appears that the 800 pound gorilla (Google) is demanding that your site be responsive (mobile friendly), or your search results will suffer. OK, with an increasing proportion of users on phones and tablets, that's probably not a bad thing. Not bad, so long as your desktop presentation doesn't suffer in the process.

 

Does anyone know exactly what Google is looking for? I would assume that, given the volume of sites to look at, it must be an automated process. In that case, how can they tell that a site is truly responsive? Do they look at a site at (minimally) phone and desktop resolutions, and detect that there are certain differences? Do they process the Javascript to see if it's modifying the presentation for device size and capabilities?

 

I smell a great business opportunity for the ethically challenged. Just as legions of black hat SEO firms have sprung up to exploit weaknesses in search engine algorithms for search rankings, they will now, for a fee, fool Google into thinking your site is responsive (and worthy of higher rankings) when really it isn't. Just watch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@@MrPhil It is hard for me to explain in english how google looks up your website, but i give it a shot.

 

First of all it looks up if you use a correct markup!

for example:

<!---------good 1st example-----(on one page)------>

<h1>Hello Google!</h1>

<div><p> or <span> and ofcourse the closing </TAG>

<h2>another Hello Google!</h2>

<div><p> or <span> and ofcourse the closing </TAG>

<h5>another Hello Google!</h5>

<div><p> or <span> and ofcourse the closing </TAG>

<!-------- end good example--------->

<!---------good 2cond example----(on one page)------->

<article id="section_one"> OR <section id="section_one">

<h1>Hello Google!</h1>

<div><p> or <span> and ofcourse the closing </TAG>

<h2>another Hello Google!</h2>

<div><p> or <span> and ofcourse the closing </TAG>

<h5>another Hello Google!</h5>

<div><p> or <span> and ofcourse the closing </TAG>

</article> OR </section>

<article id="section_one_thousand"> OR <section id="section_one_thousand">

<h1>Hello Google!</h1>

<div><p> or <span> and ofcourse the closing </TAG>

<h2>another Hello Google!</h2>

<div><p> or <span> and ofcourse the closing </TAG>

<h5>another Hello Google!</h5>

<div><p> or <span> and ofcourse the closing </TAG>

</article> OR </section>

<!-------- end good example--------->

<!---------BAD 1st example-----(on one page)------>
<h1>Hello Google!</h1>

<div><p> or <span> and ofcourse the closing </TAG>

<h1>another H1 Google does not like!</h1>

<div><p> or <span> and ofcourse the closing </TAG>

<h5>another Hello Google!</h5>
<h5>another H5 Google does not like!</h5>

<div><p> or <span> and ofcourse the closing </TAG>
<!-------- end BAD example--------->

<!---------BAD 2cond example----(on one page)------->

<article id="1"> OR <section id="1">

<h1>Hello Google!</h1>

<div><p> or <span> and ofcourse the closing </TAG>

<h2>another Hello Google!</h2>

<div><p> or <span> and ofcourse the closing </TAG>

<h5>another Hello Google!</h5>

<div><p> or <span> and ofcourse the closing </TAG>

</article> OR </section>

<h1>another H1 Google does not like!</h1>
<div><p> or <span> and ofcourse the closing </TAG>


<article id="1000"> OR <section id="1000">

<h1>Hello Google!</h1>
<h1>Hello Google!</h1>

<div><p> or <span> and ofcourse the closing </TAG>

<h2>another Hello Google!</h2>
<h2>another Hello Google!</h2>

<div><p> or <span> and ofcourse the closing </TAG>

<h5>another Hello Google!</h5>
<h5>another Hello Google!</h5>

<div><p> or <span> and ofcourse the closing </TAG>

</article> OR </section>
<!-------- end BAD example--------->

Compressions of .js .css + situated css (When have a small css rule and is used on just 1 page it is better to put/call that in that particular file).

also known as XXX..min.js  and XXX.min.css

Image compressions.

 

Canonical links, shemes etc etc etc many many many more.

 

They even lookup your font-size when on mobile.

They even SEE if you place LINKS or any navigation element to close to each-other, and tell you there are might be users with big fingers.

 

You will not always know if a "Visitor" = Google.

If you go fake your content..... well you know what hapens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't it be nice if add-ons in high demands can be packaged into the core...

 

...and to finish the development of some Bootstrap modules. That reminds me, I need to finish Theme Switcher for Bootstrap and release it. So many projects....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really. Even the high-demand addons are used by only a small percentage of shopowners. I prefer to keep osCommerce to the minimum code that's needed to operate a store, and have everything else as an easy-to-install module. It's not quite there yet, but we're getting there.

 

Regards

Jim


See my profile for a list of my addons and ways to get support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree @@kymation.

 

If we can have well written add ons, that are modular and easy to install why would be want to bundle those things into the core?  In my opinion I don't think there is any advantage to doing that.  I think we're on the right path now and need to keep pushing forward.

 

@@clustersolutions  Tim is there a reason why you keep suggesting that?

 

Dan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@butr I mentioned in other post. Things like the ability to create a blank order or an order editor are crucial features IMO. I can't imagine a shopowner thet never has to add a product or modify a price or a shipping module. This is not an improvement but a basic feature.

 

Also I think these should not rely on addons that easily get outdated by core changes and support depends on his writer.

 

On the other side, scommerce includes a lot of payment modules and how many people uses them? but they are included by default.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@@piernas I agree partially with you, but then "what is crucial", "what is essential" ?

For shop owner X or Y, requirements will always be different.

 

Just something to "consider", is that when we get all the work done so no core files editing is needed anymore, is we could build in a pre-pack installer.

either integrated into the upcoming modules installer, where shop owner selects a pre-pack.

Such lists could then be generated by the community.

 

I think this would be a very good idea, osCommerce team and it's community meet right in the middle.

If i use @@burt 's favorite quote: cherry-pick installer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@@wHiTeHaT, I (as  many other shopowners) added a good number of improvements to my shop. The little knowledge on PHP (and even smaller on javascript) I have has been learned to make oscommerce work the way I need.

 

These addons may be classified in many ways: Feature improvements, cosmetic changes, new shipping or payment modules, SEO improvements... but if I should choose one thing completely missing in oscommerce that should be there by default is the ability to make some modifications on the orders.

 

Think about it: Oscommerce is all about orders. This is the main objective of an online shop: The order itself.

 

You have customers and products, shipping and payment methods and a frontend for the customers. That's the core of all. And you as a shopowner can modify products, product options, customer details and addresses, and modules options but in no way you can edit an order other than changing its status. You can't even edit a phone number on the order if the customer calls, or change shipping address if needed, or remove an unwanted product. And telling a customer to redo an order just for doing that is... well that does not give you a good image.

 

It's like if you, on a brick and mortar shop, when a customer has ended shopping and he's taking the money from his pocket says "hey wait, I took the wrong cereal brand for my kids, may I leave this one?" or "may you add this chewing gum to the total please?" and you tell him to put everything he got on his basket again on the shelves and take everything again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi @@piernas.  I agree and really don't think there is any question about the need for an order editor and that it should be a module that is easy to install.  The question is really whether it is part of the core and maintained by the osC team or a separate module or modules that are created by independent developers who sell or contribute it to the community.  To me it all comes down to resources and where you draw the line.

 

Dan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it should be mantained with the core code. It's a complex module and shares a lot with the core code (ie. some classes and the whole checkout process) slightly modified to fit the process.

 

Just take a look at the Order editor contribution page and you'll find a lot of downloads, several contributors, versions that does not work, uploads with no full packages... and if you download the contribution you'll find that there are a lot of dead and duplicate code, less than poorly optimized, different and non-standard coding styles, fixes that break the code, addons and order total modules compatibility issues...

 

I think it's a crucial tool, a swiss army knife that must work really well and should be in the main release. And once it's done it will need few changes I think.

 

It makes no sense to have sofortueberweisung direct??? bundled while you can't change the shipping address.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, I remember the first time I tried to edit an order about 10 years ago. I pressed the edit button and spent some time until I realized the button should read "change status" instead "edit order". Next thing I had to do is to dig for an order editor contribution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So @@piernas are you going to sponsor a good developer to make this "order editor" properly, which can then be considered for inclusion into core code? As it stands, it has less than zero chance of ever seeing the light of day. If you are able to sponsor, post for quotes in the commercial forum, get it made, and up it to the addons area. Make sure that whichever developer gets the job understands that the code must be written in a modern way ready for inclusion into core.


Help shape the future of Phoenix; join the Phoenix Club

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@@burt it was you who asked for other's point of view and I gave you mine.

 

No, I'm thinking in doing it myself (I'm currently working on the order editor contribution) but with my poor knowledge I fear it will take a lot of time and I'll probably make poor code too. I'll surely ask for help soon as CSS is not a good friend of mine...

 

Also, I didn't see where are the sponsors for all other modules and core functions that oscommerce includes. I am missing something? Isn't it a community effort?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, you missed the point.  Point I was failing to make is that ones such as yourself who want XYZ in the core to make their life easier, do not realise that this makes life harder for the ones who have to support such code, or write such code.   

 

 

I dont want to (and in fact, will not) support addons in the core.

 

I want to give a clean core that allows shopowners to find an addon, drop it in, click click, installed.

 

If such addons do not exist, the shopowner gets them made and then shares with the rest of the community  <----- which is what my previous post was all about.


Help shape the future of Phoenix; join the Phoenix Club

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×