Re: My Very Strange Webhost, SBI! -- Opinions, Please

Prisoner at War wrote:
> On May 10, 10:47 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> Well, that's what you get when you ask something outside of the hosting
>> area.  They are there to keep the servers up, not troubleshoot your
>> javascript.
> 
> But it's not about the JavaScript!  My JavaScript is perfectly fine!
> If my perfectly fine HTML doesn't come out right on their servers,
> would that be "my problem" too or would it be *their* problem insofar
> as the point of webhosting would be to sup****t HTML, the language of
> webpages??
>

That's what you don't get.  IT IS ALL ABOUT JAVASCRIPT!  Your javascript 
IS NOT FINE.

> I'm not asking them for help with troubleshooting JavaScript that's
> not working; I'm asking them why JavaScript that *does* work on my end
> does not on theirs!
> 

You are asking them to do this.

> UPDATE: the issue is now resolved.  For some (unspecified, of course,
> even when prompted) reason, this webshot requires images of an image-
> swap to bear absolute file path names.  All other images -- that is,
> not used for an image-swap -- may be in the standard relative file
> path name format, but image-swap images must use absolute file path
> names.
>

Which is JAVASCRIPT.

> Nowhere was this do***ented in their upload instructions,
> however...apparently, mine was a special case, and not once since
> their founding in 1997 has someone else tried to upload images of an
> image-swap using relative file path names -- ?!?!
> 


> This seems like a gross programming bug to me, and instead of fixing
> their system to accommodate standard practices they're asking me to
> accommodate them!
>

The only programming bug is between your hears.


> All in the name of SEO...which makes me seriously question whether
> these people can actually do any SEO worthy of the name, if their SEO
> causes their server to somehow not see image files of an image-swap if
> they're not referred to with absolute path names!
>

The problem is NOT with them.

>> At least they're trying to help - even though it isn't their job.
> 
> I really find this very odd that many people have noted that "it's not
> their job" to investigate why perfectly fine -- and brain-dead
> simple!  We're talking about <img src="pic1.gif"
> onMouseOver="this.src='pic2.gif;'"> -- JavaScript doesn't work on
> their server.
> 

That's right.  Troubleshooting your code IS NOT THEIR JOB.

> Seriously, if your car doesn't run, do you think it's not the
> dealer****p's job to answer why not?  Oh, they just sell cars, they
> don't actually make them -- ?!?!
> 

Not if it's out of gas, it isn't.

But a more accurate comparison.  If your car doesn't run, it it the 
responsibility of the lot where you parked your car to tell you why it 
isn't running?  No.  It's their job to paint the lines, fill the 
potholes and plow the snow in the winter - so you have a place to park.

That's a MUCH better comparison.


>> The
>> fact they even gave you their best guess answer is more than most
>> hosting companies will do.
> 
> The fact that it wasn't until the third rep that they finally
> acknowledged my case was something they had a responsibility to
> investigate means that they were doing what "most hosting companies
> will do."
>

Which means you got someone sympathetic with you.

> We all have computers, obviously -- and tech sup****t SOP is to deny
> responsibility for anything outside of the script.  It's really
> unfortunate but many people seem to behave no more intelligently than
> a simple keyword-focused search engine, and so it took until the third
> rep that SBI! actually understood the problem.
> 

Yea, it seems it's hard for you to behave intelligently.

> So much for another of their claims to fame, friendly helpful customer/
> tech sup****t.
>

Not at all.  I think they acted mostly appropriately - at least until 
the third rep.

> I can live without their site-building templates, since I know HTML
> and enough CSS and JavaScript for my own purposes; I can even live
> without their customer sup****t since no one can care about your
> problems as much as you do; I've even given up on their private
> forums, which is probably the most useful thing about them on account
> of all the interesting business talk that goes on there, but which are
> patrolled by the "mindless positive thinking police" -- the only
> reason I have now to stick with them is their SEO claims...which I'm
> beginning to doubt....
> 

Fine.  Just don't come back here whining about more problems.  Quire 
frankly, no one here gives a damn.

>> And BTW - they aren't *completely* wrong.
> 
> About what are they not completely wrong??  Where are they "right"???
> You wouldn't happen to be one of their SBI! Rapid Response Group
> volunteers, would you??  (I kid you not; they actually have a
> volunteer "force" of subscribers who bring anti-SBI! posts to the
> company's attention, and then these volunteers show up to rebut the
> negative claims.  This most recently happened on
> associateprograms.com's forums.)
>

Absolute paths are generally the best way to go when referencing images.

But you've already proven you're too thick-headed to understand that.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@[EMAIL PROTECTED]