Does this page work in your Firefox?

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

No. Why? ...

The last time I was in Miami, signs were starting to appear on
storefronts stating "English spoken here" ... and that was nearly twenty
years ago.

[Upstate New York]
Very Nice part of the planet

'Tis true. I'm moving in a couple of weeks, and the new house overlooks
Canandaigua Lake.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Hahah you guys are hilarious! If they don't have Windows, then they have
Safari installed, which the site is also written for! What the heck are you
going on about? :-S

My Ubuntu and Mandrake boxes have neither IE or Safari...

 

[Mika]

My Ubuntu and Mandrake boxes have neither IE or Safari...

You know the site runs on Firefox so why even bother replying? You guys
crack me up. Picky picky picky picky. You should all change your usernames
to Picky McPickleson.

 

[Mika]

Probably not

Glad we agree on something.

Oh, and your iframe does work for me with Opera 9.23.

You're on the wrong street. Oxford Street does not load properly on
Opera,
does it?

Oh, I didn't realize you had different templates for different streets.
We've been looking at George Street for so long ...

[checks Oxford] The street starts with a London bus with a Harrod's ad
on the side of it, then horizontally scrolls down the street if I wish
to do so. I don't see any difference from George.

You really gotta trust us when we say it does not work. Oxford Street on
Opera only goes as far as House of Fraser, then Opera's limitation is
reached. Load Oxford Street in IE or FF and you'll see it goes on for
over a mile.

Please, no more arguing for the sake of it. We know it doesn't work with
Opera, and we don't need to convince anyone else of that fact.

That's interesting... no reply. You guys are like a rottweiler with a bone
when you think you're right about something and often turn to pack bullying,
but as soon as you realise you were wrong you just back away quietly without
a word.

People would have so much more respect if you were humble and mature enough
to say, "Apologies, what you said is true". It's good advice, take it or
leave it though.

Mika

PS: I will fall off my chair if Beauregard now replies saying, "Sorry I was
wrong, Opera is the only browser that doesn't support the length of your
div - you were right". We are very happy we have such a big div! It means
we don't need to compensate in other areas of life

 

[Mika]

Oh. My. God. Well, just for fun, we are going to help you with the plain
English we used. Ready? Are you sitting down? Here we go...


We said, "The online sites we link to are UK SHOPS".

You replied, "When did Miami, Beverly Hills, San Francisco, and New York
relocate to the UK?"

Solution to the puzzle:

Miami, Beverley Hills, SF, and NY are not... "SHOPS"... *gasp*. They are
funny things called "States".


Now let's think about this Berg. Did we say, "The online sites we link to
are UK CITIES"? Or did we say, "The online sites we link to are UK
SHOPS"? Hmm... are you getting warm yet?

That's right! Clever boy! You got it! All 3 full Streetscapes are
UK streets. The other 'Street-lites' are link to brands you'd find around
the world, and they all still link to *UK* shop websites.

Why? Because you can't actually have a truly international shopping site
where all or even most products are available to be delivered to visitors
from all countries. Virtually no single retailer supports this delivery
structure. The USA is reknowned for not allowing UK delivery addresses
when shopping at its websites. Even Amazon have not managed this on the
whole, so they split their site into UK, USA, Germany, Australia, etc. to
solve the problem.

Berg, let's help you understand. We are a small startup. We have chosen
to start in the UK. It could have been USA or Australia if we lived
there, but we are in the UK.

If we get big, sure, one day Superhighstreet.COM (which means
'Commercial', not 'USA', and is used by the majority of British websites)
will be our global portal, and redirect you to our .co.uk, .au and all
other country-specific sites just like Amazon, but for now, as we are just
beginning, is it okay by you if we just support one country at the start?
Like just about every single website that has ever been launched in the
history of mankind did? Is that okay? Please Berg? Pretty please? Only
with your consent to this ludicrous proposal of ours can we ever find the
comfort to go on!...

Just going to repeat this but...

That's interesting... no reply from you. You are like a rottweiler with a
bone
when you think you're right about something and often turn to pack bullying,
but as soon as you realise you were wrong you just back away quietly without
a word.

People would have so much more respect if you were humble and mature enough
to say, "Apologies, what you said is true". It's good advice, take it or
leave it though.

Mika

PS: I will fall off my chair if Beauregard now replies saying, "Sorry I was
wrong, you do only link to UK shops... I confused them with cities - you
were right."

 

[Ed Mullen]

Sadly there is little we can do about delays on your hops towards our
site, aside from relocating the server to the USA, and then we lose our
majority audience which are UK based.

Tracing route to superhigstreet.com [208.69.32.130]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

Thanks Ed, this is helpful.

1 * * * Request timed out.
2 * * * Request timed out.

These are your most local hops, and they are timing out. I would take this
up urgently with your ISP, explaining they were hops towards a UK server.
That would explain your extended delay.

Have to agree with BTS that this is insignificant as it happens on
virtually every tracert I do. Also, as I mentioned earlier, I can get
to most every UK site I tested in just a couple of seconds. And the
largest times are when the tracert leaves the US and starts hitting
ntt.net in the UK:

19 46 ms 39 ms 39 ms xe-7-2.r04.asbnva01.us.bb.gin.ntt.net
[129.250.9.113]
20 40 ms 47 ms 40 ms ae-1.r21.asbnva01.us.bb.gin.ntt.net
[129.250.2.180]
21 228 ms 219 ms 240 ms po-3.r05.asbnva01.us.bb.gin.ntt.net
[129.250.2.87]
22 90 ms 255 ms 235 ms fa-0.opendns.asbnva01.us.bb.gin.ntt.net
[129.250.12.114]
23 35 ms 38 ms 35 ms nxdomain.guide.opendns.com [208.69.32.130]

Still, 219-255 ms is fine. So, the only conclusion I can make is that
the load time is dependent upon the amount of "stuff" coming down the
pipe to create your page. I suppose it's also possible that the way
your page is built could be contributing but I honestly can't say. Hey,
I'm not complaining, just discussing.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net
And whose cruel idea was it to put an S in the word Lisp?

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

That's interesting... no reply.

Sorry, I was away from home for most of the day. I guess that's
interesting.

You guys are like a rottweiler with a bone when you think you're right
about something and often turn to pack bullying, but as soon as you
realise you were wrong you just back away quietly without a word.

People would have so much more respect if you were humble and mature
enough to say, "Apologies, what you said is true". It's good advice,
take it or leave it though.

So tell me then why Opera seems to work on George Street?

PS: I will fall off my chair if Beauregard now replies saying, "Sorry
I was wrong, Opera is the only browser that doesn't support the
length of your div - you were right". We are very happy we have such
a big div! It means we don't need to compensate in other areas of
life

"Sorry, how was I to know by just a quick scan of Oxford Street that it
was not complete?" Having never been there, of course. It scrolled and
scrolled and scrolled. If you hadn't written it, would you notice at a
glance that the display was not a complete street? No, you wouldn't.

Keep your chair.

 

[Mika]

Sorry, I was away from home for most of the day. I guess that's
interesting.

Now lying to cover your inability to admit when you should have trusted what
we said about Opera? I wrote the above message at 12:18 BST. You were here
responding to others at 13:13 BST. Funny how you answered other topics but
not ours where you were proved wrong.

Oh God I just realised I'm starting to sound like you guys! Better stop
this habit fast before I end up like some in this group for years spouting
the same old nonsense!

<guffaw>

Oh it is funny, not without a word, you typed lots of words to other people
just not to me.

So tell me then why Opera seems to work on George Street?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

*STILL* you're making us explain ourselves? You could have just kept shshed
and took our word for it that we knew what we were talking about, but now
you want even more justifications for something we never even asked you to
comment on?! :O

George Street is tiny. Oxford Street is huge. Therefore, George Street
never hits Opera's limitation, wherease Oxford Street does before you get
halfway.

Again, you didn't need to know this, you just needed not to comment and tell
us we were wrong.

"Sorry, how was I to know by just a quick scan of Oxford Street that it
was not complete?" Having never been there, of course. It scrolled and

You weren't. You weren't even asked to consider it let along comment or say
"it works fine" when we know it doesn't.

Keep your chair.

Keep your hair.

 

[Bone Ur]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 28 Nov 2007 22:05:03
GMT Mika scribed:

Oh God I just realised I'm starting to sound like you guys! Better
stop this habit fast before I end up like some in this group for years
spouting the same old nonsense!

Ah, don't worry. You have to know what you're talking about to get that
far. However, you may wish to tone it down, anyway, so as not to offend
Andrew.

 

[Mika]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 28 Nov 2007 22:05:03
GMT Mika scribed:


Ah, don't worry. You have to know what you're talking about to get that
far.

Yes I've only managed to prove Beauregard T. Shagnasty (real name) wrong on
2 occasions so far. Working my way up to the self-proclaimed masters like
you.

 

[dorayme]

Yes I've only managed to prove Beauregard T. Shagnasty (real name) wrong on
2 occasions so far. Working my way up to the self-proclaimed masters like
you.

A lot of stuff has gotten twisted and confused. Beauregard T.
Shagnasty is a good man and his instincts are not to be lightly
brushed aside. Never mind the micro details of the exchanges.

There is one thing I would not mind raising with you. What is
your actual evidence that in the UK itself (you are welcome to
confine it to Londoners if you like) your site is something that
people would be pleased with, use and shop, come back to and so
on. What is the control on these claims? Ever done any science?

Is there a site that has no js, no flash, no constant big or
little delays, that has perhaps simple diagramatic (rather than
the 6953 x 290px jpg you use in one of your pages) very low
bandwidth implementation of the idea at least of moving along a
street with a mouse (think low bandwidth b & w sketches or
diagrams to *represent* the street rather than *depict* it)?

Without some control of this kind, it is impossible to go on
anything but hunches and guesses. And the feedback from people
here has been pretty hard on you and irritating to you. But in
the absence of hard evidence what is there to go on?

You see, I really question whether people would be prepared to
pay the price of slowness and clunkiness for an experience that
is so far below the one of real shopping. I do not hear any
people from the UK on this newsgroup supporting the site in terms
of speed and handiess?

I have mentioned (not just as a joke) a few things before about
how great is the shortfallin any meaningfiul claim that it "like"
really being there. One can barely read any window signs or see
in for a start. I know what you would like ideally. You would
love a way to give your viewers a high quality virtual experience
(think Boeing 747 simulators). How can a jpg of your dimensions
(look at the tiny 290px height for a start) possibly do this? It
falls *so far short of any real experience* that perhaps you
should bite the bullet and not even try to be so realistic and
fail. Better to be representative, to enable things efficiently
and quickly in another way.

If you are having commercial success with your site, good luck to
you. But there is more to consider than the micro details.

 

[Bone Ur]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 29 Nov 2007 08:16:16
GMT Mika scribed:

Yes I've only managed to prove Beauregard T. Shagnasty (real name)
wrong on 2 occasions so far. Working my way up to the self-proclaimed
masters like you.

That's open to interpretation, but my beef with you is that you're using
non-standard markup (ie: incorrect) in your page, calling it correct, and
defending your position by stating that is has to be that way to work.
Without denying the reliance of "Google Maps" on anything at all, the
premise is bullshit. Period. If the empirical facts are as you profess,
and, indeed, I have no reason to believe they are not, then a change _must_
be made in order to have a viable website. Anything less is a hack and one
fundamental reason why so many sites today just functionally suck. If you
want a valid, well-operating page then you have to make it the same way,
not rely on dubious shortcuts. Since you seem to be in self-denial over
that concept, my remark was quite valid and accurate.

 

[Mika]

A lot of stuff has gotten twisted and confused. Beauregard T.
Shagnasty is a good man and his instincts are not to be lightly
brushed aside. Never mind the micro details of the exchanges.

There is one thing I would not mind raising with you. What is
your actual evidence that in the UK itself (you are welcome to
confine it to Londoners if you like) your site is something that
people would be pleased with, use and shop, come back to and so
on. What is the control on these claims? Ever done any science?

Is there a site that has no js, no flash, no constant big or
little delays, that has perhaps simple diagramatic (rather than
the 6953 x 290px jpg you use in one of your pages) very low
bandwidth implementation of the idea at least of moving along a
street with a mouse (think low bandwidth b & w sketches or
diagrams to *represent* the street rather than *depict* it)?

Without some control of this kind, it is impossible to go on
anything but hunches and guesses. And the feedback from people
here has been pretty hard on you and irritating to you. But in
the absence of hard evidence what is there to go on?

You see, I really question whether people would be prepared to
pay the price of slowness and clunkiness for an experience that
is so far below the one of real shopping. I do not hear any
people from the UK on this newsgroup supporting the site in terms
of speed and handiess?

I have mentioned (not just as a joke) a few things before about
how great is the shortfallin any meaningfiul claim that it "like"
really being there. One can barely read any window signs or see
in for a start. I know what you would like ideally. You would
love a way to give your viewers a high quality virtual experience
(think Boeing 747 simulators). How can a jpg of your dimensions
(look at the tiny 290px height for a start) possibly do this? It
falls *so far short of any real experience* that perhaps you
should bite the bullet and not even try to be so realistic and
fail. Better to be representative, to enable things efficiently
and quickly in another way.

If you are having commercial success with your site, good luck to
you. But there is more to consider than the micro details.

In a nutshell as I think this thread is getting a little tiresome, yes the
site makes money in the UK, and we get 5-figure hits per month, many from
repeat visitors. That is the science behind the chat.

Also just to clarify for once and for all, in the UK the site is not "slow &
clunky" to use, it is rather nippy on any reasonably modern pooter or
connection. See the video:

This was captured live off the
web, not locally.

 

[Mika]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 29 Nov 2007 08:16:16
GMT Mika scribed:


That's open to interpretation, but my beef with you is that you're using
non-standard markup (ie: incorrect) in your page, calling it correct, and
defending your position by stating that is has to be that way to work.

It is largely and I mean 99.9% correct. The bits that are not, it is true,
are not able to be changed - otherwise believe me we would have. We have
done a lot that the nicer folks here have suggested - a LOT.

The site is W3C CSS compliant, but even the single digits objects that give
doctype validation issues are completely irrelevant to anyone who doesn't
know or care what a doctype is. It is wrong to assume that the Great
British shopping public would first run a test to see if the site has any
inconsistencies in its code! The errors work.

Simply, they load it up, it appears in about 5 seconds, and they go
shopping.

The major differences of opinion here are through some here's inability to
understand that:

A) They live in the USA. All our shops deliver to the UK. Hence
commenting on this UK site being slow across international server hops is
about as relevant as saying Google China is displayed in the wrong language
for Americans.

B) You are all conditioned to look at the 'code' of a site. The huge
majority of surfers however only look at the 'end result' of a site as it
displays. To try to remember that just because your world is 100%
everything to you, it is nothing to others. The markup you refer to as
invalid, still works 100% intact in any browser! You and a validation site
reporting an "error" does not mean it is broken! The elements that are in
'error' work perfectly. If only you and I know that a validation site
thinks it is not right, who on earth does that affect the browsing
experience of? I have never understood that. These errors all function
100% perfectly! What harp on about them then? Is that important to you,
that they work well, but some website says they are wrong? Who cares? I
shouldn't be cause they cause no issue whatsoever at all zilch nada.

a change _must_
be made in order to have a viable website. Anything less is a hack and
one
fundamental reason why so many sites today just functionally suck. If you
want a valid, well-operating page then you have to make it the same way,
not rely on dubious shortcuts. Since you seem to be in self-denial over
that concept, my remark was quite valid and accurate.

As said over and over again, and prolly for the last time now, this is the
UK portal. When/if we get that far in the UK, and launch a USA portal, rest
assured it will be hosted on USA servers and thus load in 5 seconds for you
too. Please try to grasp this fact as it is so tiresome and is what I have
said from the start. This is a *UK* website.

Long live the Queen!

 

[Andy Dingley]

This is a *UK* website.

I'm in the UK.

It's still shit.

 

[Norman Peelman]

Now lying to cover your inability to admit when you should have trusted what
we said about Opera? I wrote the above message at 12:18 BST. You were here
responding to others at 13:13 BST. Funny how you answered other topics but
not ours where you were proved wrong.

Oh God I just realised I'm starting to sound like you guys! Better stop
this habit fast before I end up like some in this group for years spouting
the same old nonsense!


Oh it is funny, not without a word, you typed lots of words to other people
just not to me.


Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

*STILL* you're making us explain ourselves? You could have just kept shshed
and took our word for it that we knew what we were talking about, but now
you want even more justifications for something we never even asked you to
comment on?! :O

George Street is tiny. Oxford Street is huge. Therefore, George Street
never hits Opera's limitation, wherease Oxford Street does before you get
halfway.

Again, you didn't need to know this, you just needed not to comment and tell
us we were wrong.


You weren't. You weren't even asked to consider it let along comment or say
"it works fine" when we know it doesn't.


Keep your hair.

Ok, where does George St. end? In Opera 9,21 (Linux) I am able to walk
(run) from the intersection of George St. and Red Lion St. all the way
to the 3 way intersection of George St., The Square, and The Quadrant.

Norm

 

[Bergamot]

So what? I don't get the point of even mentioning cities outside the UK
if you only *want* to deal with both UK shops and UK customers.

Now your disregard for how the site performs outside the UK makes even
less sense. Good luck with that international thing.

That's interesting... no reply from you.

Not interesting at all. I do have another life away from Usenet, and
I'll be returning to it now.

 

[Blinky the Shark]

So what? I don't get the point of even mentioning cities outside the UK
if you only *want* to deal with both UK shops and UK customers.

Mostly what he wants is pats on the back.

 

[Mika]

Ok, where does George St. end? In Opera 9,21 (Linux) I am able to walk
(run) from the intersection of George St. and Red Lion St. all the way to
the 3 way intersection of George St., The Square, and The Quadrant.

Norm

That is correct. George Street works perfectly in Opera, as does Portobello
Road as we have said. Oxford Street however does not work correctly in
Opera, that is you can only scroll up to House of Fraser. In any other
browser you can scroll continuously more than twice as far.

 

[Mika]

I'm in the UK.

It's still shit.

That is perhaps the most unhelpful info anyone has given to date, and from a
fellow Brit no less.

Can you define your swear word - what does it refer to specifically? Your
broadband load time should be under 10 seconds, around 5 more likely. We
therefore doubt that is the "it" you refer to, unless you have major ISP
issues.

If you feel the concept is **** that is your opinion to which you are
entitled. As others have said here, they feel it is neat. It is just slow
outside the UK.

If you feel like contributing anything mature or remotely specific and
therefore useful, please feel free.