McLarengate- Is the hole getter deeper?
I also find the title rather unoriginal but hey- I'm pushed for time here.
This post refers to the ongoing comedy show that is Trafficdepartment.co.za
Guy has managed to get his site back under control after it was defaced and has responded with some references to some of the points I have raised. The title to his post is:
In his post Guy has made reference to Corey Rudl who in the early days of the internet saw a gap in the market and capitalised on it very effectively. I don't agree with Guy in using this as a reason not to have a visually appealing site. After all, Corey's site was cutting edge in 1994, and it embraced all the technology available to him at the time. Using this logic, sites these day really should be utilising more advanced techniques. (PS, if coded corrected, flash can be SEO optimised)
With regard to "the real reason people have businesses" and "not having a clue", I'm going to have to disagree again. I'm involved in a range of online activity, and I can assure you not everyone has a website online so they can drive sales. I'm not trying to be a smart arse here, but there are various reasons to have a site online. Guy- it's a bit like TV... not everyone is a Verimark shop. (Okay, that was pretty smart-arsed)
With regard to your offering being 'valueless', I'll disagree- it's not valueless, however I don't think it represents good value for money. Guy- you have provided examples of 'traditional' costs of domain registration etc. Thank you for this as I'm a bit out of touch with the SA costs of these.
However Guy, from what I gather when a client registers a domain with you, it is registered in your name. Why is this? Are your clients aware that in doing so they hold no rights to their domain? Are they paying for something and not owning it?
When examining your costs you failed to mention my suggestion of osCommerce.com (which is just one of many). You did bring up the point of having to have some knowledge of html and CSS, and whilst this is a valid point it still doesn't cost anything to ask for help in a forum. You've referred to the ego's of designers/developers quite a bit in your post, and you're right, they want nothing more than to show you how clever they are... might as well let them... for free.
I am not trying to prove how clever I am here... in fact take a look at my blog. Does it look like I have the first clue about design/development?
I have taken offence to the fact that you are charging people for your expertise when in fact I don't feel that you are in a position to.
I believe that Trafficdepartment's Multi-level marketing is borderline ponzi scheme, pyramid scheme, take your pick. Even if it is to two levels all of a sudden.
Once again, I think it is a very clever idea, however it just rubs me the wrong way.
This post refers to the ongoing comedy show that is Trafficdepartment.co.za
Guy has managed to get his site back under control after it was defaced and has responded with some references to some of the points I have raised. The title to his post is:
Have the script kiddies proven anything other than how infantile they are?
... The answer to this question is- no.
Moving on...In his post Guy has made reference to Corey Rudl who in the early days of the internet saw a gap in the market and capitalised on it very effectively. I don't agree with Guy in using this as a reason not to have a visually appealing site. After all, Corey's site was cutting edge in 1994, and it embraced all the technology available to him at the time. Using this logic, sites these day really should be utilising more advanced techniques. (PS, if coded corrected, flash can be SEO optimised)
With regard to "the real reason people have businesses" and "not having a clue", I'm going to have to disagree again. I'm involved in a range of online activity, and I can assure you not everyone has a website online so they can drive sales. I'm not trying to be a smart arse here, but there are various reasons to have a site online. Guy- it's a bit like TV... not everyone is a Verimark shop. (Okay, that was pretty smart-arsed)
With regard to your offering being 'valueless', I'll disagree- it's not valueless, however I don't think it represents good value for money. Guy- you have provided examples of 'traditional' costs of domain registration etc. Thank you for this as I'm a bit out of touch with the SA costs of these.
However Guy, from what I gather when a client registers a domain with you, it is registered in your name. Why is this? Are your clients aware that in doing so they hold no rights to their domain? Are they paying for something and not owning it?
When examining your costs you failed to mention my suggestion of osCommerce.com (which is just one of many). You did bring up the point of having to have some knowledge of html and CSS, and whilst this is a valid point it still doesn't cost anything to ask for help in a forum. You've referred to the ego's of designers/developers quite a bit in your post, and you're right, they want nothing more than to show you how clever they are... might as well let them... for free.
I am not trying to prove how clever I am here... in fact take a look at my blog. Does it look like I have the first clue about design/development?
I have taken offence to the fact that you are charging people for your expertise when in fact I don't feel that you are in a position to.
I believe that Trafficdepartment's Multi-level marketing is borderline ponzi scheme, pyramid scheme, take your pick. Even if it is to two levels all of a sudden.
Once again, I think it is a very clever idea, however it just rubs me the wrong way.
Labels: guy mclaren, muti, Technology, web 2.0



