IE cannot open the Internet site ... Operation aborted

[Bone Ur]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 24 Nov 2007 19:37:15
GMT Beauregard T. Shagnasty scribed:

"Your site is simply gorgeous, best site we've seen on the Web in
years, loads quicker'n a greased goose, and we'll shop there every
day!!!1!!"

(Notice our use of "we" everywhere in our post. <g> Silly, ain't it?)

Gosh, I hope this thread doesn't degenerate into one of those typical
epithet-tossing contests between a bunch of we wes.

 

[dorayme]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 24 Nov 2007 09:20:14
GMT Mika scribed:


It is incredible how we reply "Do this, do that," and you answer "Okay,
I'll do this but I don't wanna do that because it screws up something else
and the site _has_ been working successfully as-is for over a year..."

Fishbowl or arrogance - which is it?

O come on... OP is doing the best he can, he is trying to take on
board things put to him as best as he understands the advice and
his situation and business. He has not the same background as
some of the regulars here. It is hard for someone coming for
advice about one thing and getting drawn into thickets of things
which he might be a little hazy on. He needs to tread carefully
and preserve what he has worked hard to achieve and go forward in
ways that do not present him with even greater unknowns.

Be a little kinder and more patient. It won't kill you.

 

[Bone Ur]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 24 Nov 2007 18:25:32
GMT Mika scribed:

Logic. If the site works perfectly which it does right now on any
decent broadband computer it was designed for, why change something
because someone here tells us to, if it breaks the site.

Remember you guys are all a minority to the general public, who don't
know or care if the word Transitional or Strict is at the top of a
page as long as it looks and loads right.

They also don't mess around disabling JS, installing Ad Blockers, etc.
generally speaking.

Over the past year we had 5.5 million page views in IE. 0.5m in FF.
This is why we cater for IE mostly, but the site is FF compatible
also. And not one complaint from FF users that the doctype is not
100% valid as there are 12 minor inconsistencies in the code! Come
on, the site works as designed.

The only issue we do agree with is the load times can be high, however
not by broadband, which as we say, the site is labelled as being
designed for.

What exactly else is there to complain about? We have taken on some
valuable advice here and the site is now CSS W3C validated and a lot
cleaner thanks to the input here.

The most efficient form of government is a dictatorship and it works very
well for a while - sometimes a long while. Does that make it right?

The biggest problem I have with your page is when you say you have to put
something (javascript, I think) _outside_ the body tags. The reason is a
flaw in Google maps or something similar. Well, that dog don't hunt.
Can't you put the j/s in the head section - where it's valid to do so?
Sure, an exception or 2 to valid markup may (rarely) be ok for a damn
good reason, but putting markup and/or j/s code in the wrong place
exceeds such leeway considerably.

Let's put it this way: does _everybody_ who employs Google Maps on one
of their pages install the markup/code outside the body tags? Somehow, I
don't think so.

 

[dorayme]

FYI, the page took over 2 minutes to load here in Atlanta, GA on a 6
Mbps cable connection, current version of SeaMonkey.

Here in Sydney on my telephone line ADSL it was 15 sec to see
pretty well all and 25 sec before FF stopped the spinning wheel.

My Bandwidth meter download add on tool in FF reports:

Your current download speed is: 6.77 Mbps

 

[dorayme]

Basically, you are
discriminating against these shoppers. You need to be careful, you
could easily be sued.

He could not easily be sued successfully. A luxury service like
some taxis and hire-cars and valets hardly discriminates against
poor people in any legal sense.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS

<snip>

You replied to the wrong person.

 

[Mika]

O come on... OP is doing the best he can, he is trying to take on
board things put to him as best as he understands the advice and
his situation and business. He has not the same background as
some of the regulars here. It is hard for someone coming for
advice about one thing and getting drawn into thickets of things
which he might be a little hazy on. He needs to tread carefully
and preserve what he has worked hard to achieve and go forward in
ways that do not present him with even greater unknowns.

Be a little kinder and more patient. It won't kill you.

Thanks, and thanks for confirming the page loads fast for you in Oz.

Mika

 

[Randy Webb]

Beauregard T. Shagnasty said the following on 11/24/2007 5:16 PM:

<snip>

You replied to the wrong person.

No he didn't.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Beauregard T. Shagnasty said:

No he didn't.

Yes, he did. It's not my site, it's Mika's.

 

[Blinky the Shark]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 24 Nov 2007 16:57:49 GMT
Blinky the Shark scribed:


<grin>

Like that word. 'Never been called that before and I've been called a lot
of things. But the fact is that fish just don't have any civil rights.
They also smell and swim with their own poop so is it any wonder that
people generally consider them repulsive except in a frying pan? I
personally don't have anything against fish per se, but most of them are
still wet behind the ears and being so basically worthless doesn't
particularly lead the higher life forms to generate much thought about the
subject one way or the other. Fish themselves probably look at it as a
sort of prolonged version of "War of the Worlds" and realize their
inadequacies are just part of their miserable daily existence.

Worthless? Worthless?! If it weren't for us, the world (well the
oceans) would be crawling with groupers...and you know how bad that
would be from seeing the Google variety all over usenet.

 

[Randy Webb]

Beauregard T. Shagnasty said the following on 11/24/2007 6:47 PM:

Yes, he did. It's not my site, it's Mika's.

<sigh> The reply was in direct relation to the reference to Google'ing
for HOSTS Files, which tells how to defeat Google ads. He replied to the
right post, he just didn't know what he was talking about.

VK's belief was that the idea was to attempt to suppress Google ads on a
google ad page by the author of that page. That isn't what HOSTS Files
are about.

Can this thread be dropped from c.l.j though? It is getting rather
boresome and off-topic here.

 

[Bone Ur]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 24 Nov 2007 23:51:54
GMT Blinky the Shark scribed:

Worthless? Worthless?! If it weren't for us, the world (well the
oceans) would be crawling with groupers...and you know how bad that
would be from seeing the Google variety all over usenet.

Well, I was grouping groupers into the same category; they are fish, too.
However, for _you_ to denigrate groupers is intra-phylum-discrimination.
Furthermore, I don't think all fish are equally worthless. Those cute
little colorful ones which reside in home aquariums can be relaxing in a
hypnotic way to the duller mind. But the big ones that eat people and
other fish I may want to eat serve little purpose to a progressive,
advanced society.

 

[Bone Ur]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 24 Nov 2007 20:56:44
GMT dorayme scribed:

O come on... OP is doing the best he can, he is trying to take on
board things put to him as best as he understands the advice and
his situation and business. He has not the same background as
some of the regulars here. It is hard for someone coming for
advice about one thing and getting drawn into thickets of things
which he might be a little hazy on. He needs to tread carefully
and preserve what he has worked hard to achieve and go forward in
ways that do not present him with even greater unknowns.

See, that's the thing. "Go forward" from what? -A flawed foundation?
There is no "forward" to go to. It needs to be rebuilt, not patched or
amended, because the base is wrong. I don't fault the OP for not
knowing how to do something but I do fault him for an adolescent
attitude toward something which is essentially incorrect. Adrienne is
right; he needs to do some primary stuff over, and I thought that from
the very beginning. You just can't put crap which must be read by the
page outside the body tag that way and expect it all to work
peachy-keen.

Be a little kinder and more patient. It won't kill you.

I want my Maypoe!

 

[Blinky the Shark]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 24 Nov 2007 23:51:54
GMT Blinky the Shark scribed:


Well, I was grouping groupers into the same category; they are fish, too.
However, for _you_ to denigrate groupers is intra-phylum-discrimination.

And that's not prohibited. Especially here, high on the food chain.

Furthermore, I don't think all fish are equally worthless. Those cute
little colorful ones which reside in home aquariums can be relaxing in a
hypnotic way to the duller mind. But the big ones that eat people and

But it takes 500 of them just to make a snack.

other fish I may want to eat serve little purpose to a progressive,
advanced society.

We've been evolving longer than you have. And we're not making holes in
the ozone layer.

 

[Mika]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 24 Nov 2007 20:56:44
GMT dorayme scribed:


See, that's the thing. "Go forward" from what? -A flawed foundation?
There is no "forward" to go to. It needs to be rebuilt, not patched or
amended, because the base is wrong. I don't fault the OP for not
knowing how to do something but I do fault him for an adolescent
attitude toward something which is essentially incorrect. Adrienne is
right; he needs to do some primary stuff over, and I thought that from
the very beginning. You just can't put crap which must be read by the
page outside the body tag that way and expect it all to work
peachy-keen.

Your peers here would disagree with you:
http://tinyurl.com/hvfsw
'Internet Explorer cannot open the Internet site, Operation aborted "Google
Map API error"'
"Move all of the remaining code that google supplied you with when
generating your API key (minus the div from above) to the very bottom of
your document, outside of the body tag."

That is exactly what WE (the 3 of us) have done and it works. No need for
further discussion.

We are not in a position to rewrite the site from scratch on your say so at
the moment as explained this is a spare time hobby project, however we have
resolved the issue this thread was started for, and that was the intention.

We appreciate the site may not be fast when accessed from some foreign
countries, but it is fast when accessed from Australia on the other side of
the world, and works fast on any European PC we can test on, in any browser
with JS enabled.

The site is designed for UK visitors, which is why the only 3 streetscapes
featured are UK ones. For the interest of UK residents in USA streets we do
provide some 'Street-lites' as we call them for US areas, but these are not
the streetscapes the site is based around.

We appreciate the help given here to solve the IE/Google bug and have now
done so, so thank you to those who gave constructive assistance. Problem
solved.

Mika, Esa, & Ben

 

[Bone Ur]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 25 Nov 2007 06:40:50
GMT Blinky the Shark scribed:

And that's not prohibited. Especially here, high on the food chain.

High and complacent. Read on...

But it takes 500 of them just to make a snack.

They're a delicacy. You're only supposed to eat a few at a time.

We've been evolving longer than you have. And we're not making holes
in the ozone layer.

Longer but slower. Much slower. As a matter of fact, sharks in
particular pretty much hit a dead stop prior to the beginning of the Age
of Dinosaurs. Ergo, for the last 200+ million years, all they do is swim
around and take up space in the sea just like their forefishies did in
the good ol' Triassic. Humans, on the other hand, evolved at least 1000
times as much in the most current 5 million years alone! Fish have
little reason to brag, -especially when one considers how ugly they are.

 

[Bone Ur]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 25 Nov 2007 14:48:52
GMT Mika scribed:

Your peers here would disagree with you:
http://tinyurl.com/hvfsw
'Internet Explorer cannot open the Internet site, Operation aborted
"Google Map API error"'
"Move all of the remaining code that google supplied you with when
generating your API key (minus the div from above) to the very bottom
of your document, outside of the body tag."

That is exactly what WE (the 3 of us) have done and it works. No need
for further discussion.

We are not in a position to rewrite the site from scratch on your say
so at the moment as explained this is a spare time hobby project,
however we have resolved the issue this thread was started for, and
that was the intention.

Yeah, right.

First of all, this proves Ryan Grant's solution is correct how? Because
it works for you? Apparently it didn't work for "rf", the first poster
in the blurb.

Second, did you even try the "advanced fix" instead of the "simple fix"?
The former, all of about 6 lines, is valid as opposed to the latter.

We appreciate the site may not be fast when accessed from some foreign
countries, but it is fast when accessed from Australia on the other
side of the world, and works fast on any European PC we can test on,
in any browser with JS enabled.

The site is designed for UK visitors, which is why the only 3
streetscapes featured are UK ones. For the interest of UK residents
in USA streets we do provide some 'Street-lites' as we call them for
US areas, but these are not the streetscapes the site is based around.

We appreciate the help given here to solve the IE/Google bug and have
now done so, so thank you to those who gave constructive assistance.
Problem solved.

Mika, Esa, & Ben

You've solved zilch. You only buried the problem and obfuscated the
issue. Ergo, considering the obtuseness of your obstinacy, we are going
off to tell Brit jokes for our mutual amusement.

Kukla, Fran, & Ollie

 

[Blinky the Shark]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 25 Nov 2007 06:40:50
GMT Blinky the Shark scribed:


High and complacent. Read on...

Bordering on arrogance, in fact.

They're a delicacy. You're only supposed to eat a few at a time.

Shark. Eat a few at a time. Hee hee.

Longer but slower. Much slower. As a matter of fact, sharks in

Now long is that in shark years?

particular pretty much hit a dead stop prior to the beginning of the Age
of Dinosaurs. Ergo, for the last 200+ million years, all they do is swim
around and take up space in the sea just like their forefishies did in

Once you're achieved perfection there is no evolutionary pressure in the
scheme of natural selection to send the species off in new directions.

the good ol' Triassic. Humans, on the other hand, evolved at least 1000
times as much in the most current 5 million years alone! Fish have
little reason to brag, -especially when one considers how ugly they are.

Humans evolved faster because they had more to imrove on and less time
to do it. Eventually, they may reach the evolutionary perfection that
sharks have. Well, probably not -- sharks have avoided the unwanted
capability to blow themselves up in massive quantities.

One of the essences of sharkness is the beauty of sleekness and balance.

 

[Blinky the Shark]

Kukla, Fran, & Ollie

I remember watching them. [sounds of cartilage creaking]

 

[dorayme]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 24 Nov 2007 20:56:44
GMT dorayme scribed:


See, that's the thing. "Go forward" from what? -A flawed foundation?
There is no "forward" to go to. It needs to be rebuilt, not patched or
amended, because the base is wrong.

Funny how you, an earthling, so little understand human
psychology, pride, investment and the general notion of theory
building. No one reasonably competent, if handed the job of
fulfilling some of the basic aims of the OP would start with what
he has. Nearly every site that comes up here would be built from
the ground up by a well versed author. That does not mean that
that is what you can expect - or demand stridently - of an
innocent wanderer into these alleys. It does not mean you should
be mugging them if they don't throw out the lot and start again.

If he says the site has been working successfully for over a
year, then sure, you can challenge that, and if you succeed to
sow doubts, that will start to move him. But charging at him like
a bull is not going to work. It never really does. You are too
star struck by the "bitter salt" theory of being honest with a
student or client. Honesty and straight talking is a simple
minded single string bow in the educational game. It is no magic
bullet. Stop getting all thingy when these bullets you fire
bounce off.

It is simply wrong that a site cannot be rebuilt over time in a
considerably inefficient manner. And you will never see that this
inefficiency has some great advantages for those people who would
learn things slowly over a period of time in a project that is
already sailing at sea. You are demanding the ship be sunk or be
dry docked and completely rebuilt, and few merchant ship owners
will come at that.