On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 23:51:00 -0500, "Stacey"
<stacey@staceyssimplestuff.com> wrote:

>
>
>"Carol W" <from_you@nomail.com> wrote in message
>news:e89141lnchgv17leo8e1gr4jqgateeict0@4ax.com.. .
>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 18:08:44 -0500, "Stacey"
>> <stacey@staceyssimplestuff.com> wrote:
>
>> [snip]
>>>
>>>Like, I said I really don't care if your site validates or not. I am not
>>>the
>>>one pushing the issue on validation. :-)
>>
>> You said, originally, "No need to post them as above is enough. :-)"
>> then say you didn't really care if my sites did validate. But if you
>> didn't care if they _did_ validate, why didn't you share about those
>> as well?
>
>Well, I only shared the 6, because it was enough. Plus, you could see that
>yes I knew those were your sites.
[snip]
>So, I didn't list the other 10.
>
>> You can view it that I am "pushing the issue on validation" but you
>> could be viewed as pushing the issue also.
>
>Nope, I knew about these before, during the last speil and go around about
>validation. I kept it to myself as I felt it wasn't necessary really.

Ok, about this - some things don't add up.

Now I understand that you are pointing out that not all my pages
passed validation at the time you checked them - so not 100%. What I
don't understand is you don't wish to acknowledge visiting 1 or both
of the other sites. You have instead replied that you "didn't care if
they validated or not" as you are "sharing the point" that I don't
"practice what I preach".

Let's say you found 1out of the remaining 2 - and you saw that the
index page validated. So out of 3 sites, that would've meant 33.3%, or
1/3rd, of my index pages validates but 66.7% do not. In my
understanding of math, 33.3% is not 100% - not even close to it. So
you still had the "not 100%" thought covered.

I confirmed the cut-n-paste report is most likely right on the money,
that those pages don't validate. Which again, if you knew about those
sites prior to March 11th then you would've noticed that I had worked
on some of the pages - so the sites have been worked on so the pages
not being ignored.

>You have kept your sites a secret and I
>was sticking to that. It was out of respect that you don't want people
>knowing your sites. .

Yes, I don't share my URLs in my posts, in this NG or other places I
post at. But not out of secrecy. I just don't use my posts to help
side-promote my sites. I have shared that before as the reason - so no
sig line shared on my posts. It was a month or so back that you shared
that you were either cutting back or ceasing sharing your URL on this
group - citing themes and this groups' being mirrored as part of the
reason.

Besides, there hasn't been any occassion where I have needed to share
one of my URLs in this NG. (as in like if I had posted something and
used one of my pages as example). Dave, Cat, and some others can do it
and with flair plus ease - but it works with what they are posting
about, and how, on the occassions they do it.

Some people may not want to share their URLs on here due to some of
the 'inhouse fighting' that can occur from time to time. I can
understand that to a degree as there have been battlecries shared of
"I will take your SERP" or "I got your site deleted/banned/whatever"

But if I had wanted to be secretive, I wouldn't post using my real
name and instead of saying "I have a humor site ..." worded it more
vaguely.

>The other errors I mentioned had some text to where if
>someone searched with the text they find your sites

I have jokingly shared 1 or 2 times in the past about people can find
one of my sites by following the clues shared in my posts.

This is a group about search engines. Those who wish to find me can
easily find me. You did. Others have, and will, too.

I post using my first name and I generally sign my posts. I have
shared that I have a humor and a folklore site. I don't know if I have
shared the 3rd one's topic theme on here - might have but unsure. I
think I usually mention about the humor site the most.

'carol humor' - using the "clues" I come at #3 or #4. Given that you
- in wishing to share some secrecy - shared the two sites by their
first words ... I wonder how many tried a 'carol funky' search? ) I
just did - come at #14 with the humor site [1].

So if someone can find me by using by my first name and the theme or
first word of a domain name shared - then ys, they could done a search
with the text shared in a cut-n-paste of an error report.

>Basically, most of the people in the NG do not know your websites.

As I've shared - it isn't hard to find one of them at all with a
simple search phrase based off what I shared in my posts or others
have shared when/if they mentioned about one of my sites.

So, most
>of them have to take your word that yes you validate 100%, all of your HTML
>is strict, etc.

As you have mentioned knowing about my sites prior to March 11th -
then you would known that those sites were being worked on. As prior
to March 11th one of the other sites' main page didn't validate -
which you could've pointed out when I asked you about those other two
sites.

I have shared that those sites are in the midst of multiple changes
being added or things moved around/removed. Some of that has resulted
in errors. However - at the same time - I have been working on
correcting the pages. So I am not ignoring them either.

I've said if given a preference I would lean to strict. Some of my
pages will validate for transitional while others will go for strict.
Unlike some would - in html them groups - I have not told others they
should go for strict.

You mention in a posting about doing it, then in a insulting
>manner that it wasn't up for discussion.

What did I say was not up for discussion?

You, and others, could have shared opinions about validation itself.
What I said was not up for discussion or debate was, due to me sharing
it on the heels of a heated debate, if I was somehow implying some
degree of importance to the thought. So the peanut gallery comment,
which is actaully I think the heart of this, was not just you but also
John and Dave who had also debated, in the other thread, in a 100 or
more posts about "most importance" or "the most important" thoughts
implied.

About in terms of insultive manner - I am not innocent. But other
people's noses aren't so clean either. If you felt the peanut gallery
comment was aimed just at John or another person then I doubt it you
would've found it a problem. I am partially basing that on you saying
you had "some dirt on me" but didn't think it was that important or
whatever [until you felt I had somehow insulted you that is].

If you had indeed known about my sites for a while, prior to March11th
- and especially prior to mid-February [as that is when I did the
extended replace mentioned later in this post] then it would been
known to you that those sites were undergoing a lot of tweaks and
changes. Which I don't feel requires me to defend myself - even if you
are trying to imply that I should have validated those pages prior to
uploading.

In trying to accuse me of being vague or sharing only "what I would
like to have shared" - you, in a way, have done the same; even if in
hopes of trying to get my goat. If you could share reference to two
sites by "humor" and "funky" then you could have shared about the
other two using the first words from their domain names.

I felt well, hey it seems humorous
>to write your little quip, but it is even humorous that all of your pages
>don't validate.:-)

Would you prefer that I do all the corrections over time then upload
the changes? I probably should've done it that way - but didn't. One
change was where I added over 150 mail forms to pages to remove the
various encrypted mailto: links. This is not including the other
changes done to various pages throughout the site and one other. I did
the changes then uploaded them.

So, yeah, I am doing some 2 steps forward and 1 step back on how I
did/am doing all these changes and additions. But that is not the same
as saying I uploaded those pages then forgot about them. I have shared
and agreed, even prior to this thread, that it takes time to correct
pages - which negates thoughts of "why bother" as "it takes (too much)
time". If I felt it took too much time, then I wouldn't have tweaked
some pages just last week and uploaded them - which had another site's
main page, and some other pages, validate.

>Also, I don't know if you made most of your pages to be spilt with some info
>on the top and side and the rest below. Meaning it doesn't show side by
>side...which I think side by side is how you wanted it to look. In other
>than IE, yes it is side by side and looks better.

[1] In light of a search, that is happening on some pages in the humor
site due to an HTML error. I was curious why you had asked why I
shared links to the 'funky' site - and the search explained that also.

The links to the 'funky' site had been removed from the other two
sites. In mid-to-late February on the humor site I had done an
'extended replace' on that 'same blurb' - which 'funky' was shared as
a second link. Some pages, such as the index.html and apparently the
About.html, were skipped over in that process so did not have blurb
removed. Which, if it had been, would not resulted in an orphan </div>
being shared (as a result of another change) which causes one side
'drop' on those handful of pages.

I will correct that and upload the changes. May not be tonight as I am
tired from the past couple of days spent at the hospital.

Carol