Please, do not give redirections when requesting a review!

[conkermaniac]

I strongly dislike it when I see people give redirections for people to review, like -------- or .tk domains. The advantages to giving your actual URL rather than a rediretion are numerous. See why:

1. Reviewers aren't going to give you any extra points just because your URL is shorter. However, they definitely will TAKE OFF points or at least criticize your website if your redirection is slow or not working properly.

2. In many countries, -------- and other redirections are blocked. You are also losing potential customers. Of course, if you use a webhost like Geocities or Host.sk, your website will be blocked for many users as well. However, if you're using a perfectly fine host like 9cy, you could be losing potential reviewers by simply using a blocked redirection.

3. Redirections can often get painfully slow at times or might even have occasional downtimes. Yes, I know webhosts are also slow and have downtimes, but what if your website is working fine but your redirection is not? Why risk losing a few (possibly valuable) reviews, when your site is working fine, simply because of a silly redirection?

4. Redirections can often carry ads with them, such as --------. For those of you that THINK that your redirection has no ads, remember that the host reserves the right to ad ads to your account, without any notice. Anyway, this will be very annoying to the reviewers, and they will criticize it for sure.

5. Lastly, some redirections (that "cloak" your URL) use frames. This makes it difficult for reviewers to check your source in order to pinpoint exactly what is wrong with your site. Trust me, nobody's going to bother looking for the URL within the frame tags in your source code, then coyping and pasting the URL, going to the new webpage, and searching through the problematic source code. Make it easy for the reviewers.

[meow]

Guess what? I couldn't agree more. :D

[Giancarlo]

Make no mistake about it a lot of redirectors suck royally. But there are some out there that are okay... CJB was one of them, but not anymore.

So for the most the part I agree.

[Christopher]

I agree with all of it, even though I don't review that often...

[meow]

It isn't about if he services are good or not GC, but that redirection doesn't belong in a review forum.

[byrdgirl13]

for example, say someone's site was really slow and they had shown their real url. we could see what host they use, so we could tell if it was because of a slow host and then suggest a new host. if they used a redirect url, we wouldn't be able to see if their site was slow because of the host (or at least it would be more of a bother!).

(...granted that my sig has my redirect url, but my sig is not there for reviews. i used my real url to ask for reviews :o )

[ProDave]

Originally posted by conkermaniac
5. Lastly, some redirections (that "cloak" your URL) use frames. This makes it difficult for reviewers to check your source in order to pinpoint exactly what is wrong with your site. Trust me, nobody's going to bother looking for the URL within the frame tags in your source code, then coyping and pasting the URL, going to the new webpage, and searching through the problematic source code. Make it easy for the reviewers.

You don't need to mess around curring and pasting to see the source code of a "cloaked" page.

Simply right click within the page and "view Source" from there and you get the source code of the actual page.

Only the View Source from the pull down menu shows the source of the cloaking frame

[conkermaniac]

Originally posted by ProDave


You don't need to mess around curring and pasting to see the source code of a "cloaked" page.

Simply right click within the page and "view Source" from there and you get the source code of the actual page.

Only the View Source from the pull down menu shows the source of the cloaking frame

That's exactly what I mean. I can't be bothered with cutting and pasting from the source code.

[ProDave]

Originally posted by conkermaniac


That's exactly what I mean. I can't be bothered with cutting and pasting from the source code.

And that's exactly what I said YOU DON'T NEED TO CUT AND PASTE.

I take it you are viewing the source by using the VIEW pull down menu, and then selecting View Source from this. granted that will show the source of the top frame page, so youe WOULD have to cut and paste the url to see the page.

But instead hover the mouse cursor somewhere inside the page that you want to see, Right click the mouse and select View Source from the menu that pops up. This takes you straight to the source of the actual page WITHOUT CUTTING AND PASTING.

If the page is comprised of multiple frames, just right click in each frame to see the source for THAT frame.

Easy, so why are you still on about cutting and pasting, that's NOT necessary.

This works in IE4,5 and 6, I haven't tried it with other browsers.

[Jan]

In Netscape you can open the frame in a new window. That will give the true URL and enable you to view the source :cool2:

[meow]

I think we all know how to view source. That's not the point. Especially as quite a few pages uses frames or iframe on top of the redirection it's an extra bother however one does it.

Under all circumstances redirection makes it harder, often spawns pop-ups and sometimes is slow and even crashes your browser (tk).

[Jan]

Originally posted by meow
Under all circumstances redirection makes it harder, often spawns pop-ups and sometimes is slow and even crashes your browser (tk).
(whoops - nearly edited again)

Yes I agree with that. I look at few sites now for that very reason. So if you guys want more to view your sites and make a comment, don't use redirection services :bandit2:

[is0lized]

glad you put some thought into posting, lots of people will just spam


i agree with you also

[nitroboy]

- yeah I agree with you, I don't see the point why people post their shorter url
- a shorter url may be easy to remember for visitors if they want to visit back, webmasters can put it somewhere on their site...

[meow]

Well, it does make sense if the real reason they post isn't to get a review but that they hope Google will pick their URL up from here. :p

[Dusty]

In Netscape you can open the frame in a new window. That will give the true URL and enable you to view the source...or, if you're using a new version of Netscape, just select "Frame Source" from the "View" menu or "View Frame Source" from the contextual menu, and skip having to open the frame in a new window.

[meow]

:rolleyes: Then let's take them away. huh?

[Dusty]

Let's shall. :D

One more for old times sake:

:topic:

[conkermaniac]

Originally posted by meow
Well, it does make sense if the real reason they post isn't to get a review but that they hope Google will pick their URL up from here. :p

Google does not accept redirections.