Boojum

Odd. For the past several days, even though I have selected "Enable email notification of replies" in my topic posts, I have not actually received any such notifications. Is this just some issue with my ISP/mail service, or are others experiencing the same problem?

TCH-Scott: 1. Thanks for the information on indexing, but I'm a bit confused. When I type "site:www.squort.com -querty" in the search field, Google returns a "no documents found" page; removing the space yields a page requesting the addition of some search terms, but when I add, e.g., "...+warthoggish" (a keyword that does bring up pages from the old site when used by itself), I still get the same page. 2. How exactly do you determine from Google's responses just how recently the page/site in question has been indexed? Or, indeed, that it has been indexed at all?

charle97: I do indeed thank you for the links. Please let me know if I can reciprocate.

While it is true that images using rarer fonts can be substituted for text in some contexts, I tend to feel that this incurs the drawbacks accompanying images, which multiply if one uses them extensively in place of text. Among other things, it will mean longer page load times--especially on slow internet connections like mine. Also, visitors with image viewing inactive in their browsers (and I believe this effectively describes search-engine spiders as well) will be unable to see the image/text. All this is why I strive to keep the requirements for viewing my pages as designed as simple as possible: I'd rather forgo a few bells and whistles than lose visitors without obscure fonts and the latest browsers.

When I institute my new subdomains, should I resubmit each to Google as a separate URL (since by some definitions they are indeed separate), or will the existing index for the site as a whole incorporate them as subsets? I have read varying advice on this subject around the web, but nothing authoritative.

charle97: When you say Squort.com is listed in Google, what keywords do you mean that it's listed under? So far, the keywords/phrases that I've routinely used to check Google listings all point to the old URL--which now in turn points to a "custom 404 page" comprising unsolicited advertisements.

For what it's worth--and it's probably ultraconservative of me--I divide my fonts into two categories: "times, times new roman, serif" (usually the default) and "arial, helvetica, sans-serif." As far as I know, this works fairly well across browsers and OSs, although it doesn't allow for a lot of latitude.

Well, I now have an update on the situation. I spoke to my previous ISP/host, asking them, as a courtesy, to set up a 301 redirect page so anyone reaching the old site via Google would be forwarded to the new URL. Their reaction: They removed the pages, all right. And then they redirected all visits to their "custom 404 page," allowing anyone who tried to find the site to view an assortment of lovely unsolicited advertisements while concluding that my site no longer exists. Now, can anyone tell me any means of getting Google to update its index? (Note: There are already several inbound links, using the correct URL, from other fairly popular sites, and these do appear on a Google search, so I must conclude that Google found nearly identical content at two different URLs and decided that the old version was the real site.)

Intriguing. I just received an e-mail from a "patrick.devereaux@ranking.com" beginning: This seems scamlike to me at first glance, so I'm hesitating to respond. Does anyone know if Ranking.com is what it purports to be, and how far it is to be trusted?

TCH-Scott: My primary problem, once again, is that I have no access to the old site. Is there some way to make the script you supplied work without that?

TCH-Scott: Unfortunately, I do not have access to .htaccess or any other files at my previous host; it was also my previous ISP, so my login will not work now that my account with them is closed. I could try asking them to prepare a 301 themselves, but my sense is that they are unaware of having the pages still on their server, and would likely react to the request simply by removing them without further ado. And this would create the exact situation I least want, where Google's index leads to pages that no longer exist and for which there is no redirect. Any other approaches I could try?

Logging on to the forum this morning, I noticed that my avatar had reverted to a squashed version of an old and larger image. Similarly, I was unable to view Darqflare's avatar or signature icon yesterday, and noticed a few others scattered throughout the forum that also failed to appear. I have re-updated my avatar, but I wondered if anyone knew what's going on with this.

That's a matter for serious concern. If server downtime is not properly reported by Alertra, any statistics the service generates are called into question. And that would include the famed "99.5%" uptime TCH boasts in its promotional materials. I hope someone will look into this issue with appropriate celerity and diligence.

Hmm. Leave it to me to break the trend. My default home page is indeed my site homepage, this one, to be precise. That way, I know immediately if my site is down. I must be the proverbial exception that proves the rule. (And by the way, does that particular proverb actually make any sense to anyone?)

I'm not sure if there's any more specific category for this, so I'll ask it here. An old version of my site still exists on my previous host's servers, and Google's index still points to it. (To test this, try a search for "squort".) So, how do I get Google to update its index before having the old version deleted? And, indeed, should I? Or is this a case where the index will be updated only when the old version has been removed? What I don't want is to have the old host delete the pages only to find that the site disappears from Google altogether, which is why I have not yet taken any action. I ask here because Google doesn't provide any means of contact--and besides, it seems there's always someone here who knows the answer to any question, however obscure. Rock Sign TCH-Rob: Moved as Google is aimed a bit more at promotion.

Ladybug. (My three-and-a-half-year-old daughter, Samantha, currently obsessed with the Mac game Bugdom, has recently decided she's a ladybug. Her sentences are apt to begin with "Ladybug wants...".)

Nitpicker's Note: The actual quote runs, "The love of money is the root of all evil."

Congratulations are indeed in order, Darqflare. And I think your banner logo shows that you are irrefragably a talented artist. Thumbs Up

Celebrolatry.

TCH-Don: Four hours? Sounds like about an hour more than I've averaged lately--but then again, I suffer intractable insomnia. Yawn. Thud. Zzzzzzzzzz.

Madmanmcp: Merci once again. (Although I will now have to learn how to use the service at tracert.com.)

Thanks, all. By the way, when I do start implementing CSS, do I need to change the document-type declaration atop my pages, or will the current "HTML 4.01..." still work? (Sorry to inundate everyone with questions all the time. One day, I hope to be able to return the favor by actually answering some of others' questions. Until then, I will at least try to ask good questions. )

elusivedreams' post about threats from a potential hacker raise a question: In general, how do you find IP addresses for site visitors--especially those who leave fake e-mail addresses in their guestbook entries? (For the matter of that, how do you learn your own IP address? [Told you I'm asking neophyte questions. ])

Madmanmcp: Actually, I can't do sub-subdomains and so forth here, so that won't really be applicable. It seems the most I'll be able to manage is subdirectories inside my base subdomains. In any case, for all your assistance, allow me to say, as George W. Bush would doubtless pronounce it, "Mercy bookowp, moan Amy."

Odd. After writing my previous reply, I clicked "Add Reply," then realized I wanted to rephrase something and cancelled. I then found the "Add Reply" button dimmed, and had to first click the preview button before being allowed to add the reply. Is this the way it's supposed to work?