Tyssen

Most of the sig renders come from games though which are made up of 3D models which have to be 'rendered'.

I was getting a similar thing from one of my forms. All the spam was coming from online gaming sites and they kept copying their keywords into all the fields. So I set up a filter on the commonly used spam words and now I don't get it any more. (This was done in ASP, but the method will be the same for PHP.) 'checks for spamDim spam, spamArrayspam = false spamArray = Array("poker", "viagra", "texas", "xanax", "holdem")for i=0 to 4 if (InStr(Request.Form("message"),spamArray(i)) > 0 ) then spam = true end ifnextYou put the words you want to filter out into the array, then loop through the relevant field (in my case, the message field) a few times to see if any of those words are present. If they are, spam = true and the email doesn't get sent.

I would've thought that. As long as visitors are ending up somewhere on your site, it's a good thing. If one of your sub-level pages ends up being more popular than the home page, it's still not a bad thing cos they're on your site which is what you wanted. But you might then want to look at why that page is more popular and then incorporate some of its content into your home page if possible.

These ones are important. Description helps formulate the description that search engines will place below your link in their results; robots tells the engine which pages to index and which pages to ignore (if you have content on your site that you don't want showing up in search results); and the http-equiv makes sure your pages are interpreted properly by browsers, so the last one is essential. You can forget these two. Search engines don't pay attention to keywords anymore and generator just tells the engine what you used to create your site which is hardly of any use to anyone.

One flaw with this method is that you've given absolute positioning to your first element. You can achieve the same result without absolutely positioning your first element like this: <div id="Layer1" style="width:400px; height:200px; z-index:1; background-color: #000066; layer-background-color: #000066; border: 1px solid #000000;"><div id="Layer2" style="position:absolute; left:5px; top:10px; width:400px; height:200px; z-index:2; background-color: #0099FF; layer-background-color: #0099FF; border: 1px solid #000000;"></div></div>The second <div> is positioned absolutely in relation to the first (ie it's inside the first div). I've just posted this in another thread, but it seems relevant to this one too: CSS dropshadows (with feathered edges).

You could use a combination of absolute and relative positioning and z-index to place a solid colour element of the same dimensions behind an image that would do the job. Or, still using an image: CSS drop shadows.

Not trying to rain on your parade, but you can accomplish the same effect through CSS without images.

I used to use Macs exclusively for about 7 years and would always have Mac v PC arguments with friends. Then I started using PCs. Now I don't care which really.

Then the admin should've known better to start a topic like this. In my experience on forums, whenever you start a thread that complains about something, it inevitably ends up being about the very thing you were complaining about in the first place.

That's not the easiest way - that's a harder way to do it. The hover element in CSS is there so you don't need to use javascript.

What I meant was that you'd do the scripting in ASP or PHP and then it would still be served whether JS was on or not.

If your site is in PHP or ASP, you wouldn't have to worry about JS being turned off. But really, that's why I do nearly all my sites for a maximum width of 800px - its too much additional work otherwise.

ul li a { display: block; width: x; height: x; }

Are you serious?

Yeah, was gonna say - how you gonna pull that off? I actually think your site's fine as it is. Certainly a lot better than most I've seen hosted on Xisto.

The difference is that <div>s are used to display 'divisions' of content and tables are used to present tabular data. So when people started using tables for layout and presentation, they were using them for a purpose they were never intended. Semantically speaking (and according to the guidelines set down by the W3C), tables should only be used to display tabular data (the sort of data that would be held in a database - rows and columns). Tables also aren't as search engine friendly, nor are they as easy to use for people with disabilities (e.g. people using screen readers).

There are two known Google issues/techniques known as 'ageing delay' and the 'sandbox' which basically means that if your site is new, that it won't show up in any Google searches for anything but the title of the site for at least six months.

If you boosted the contrast on your current design (including in the header), I'd go for that. The new one is quite neat but it's not very interesting/inspiring. The first one's got a bit more style to it but is generally just too dark.

No, no-one has said that in this thread. Fair enough you were trying to bring the thread back around to HTML, but you should've explained why you were making the corrections as the only people who would find this tutorial useful are the ones who know absolutely nothing about X/HTML and therefore would be likely to end up using a combination of both if they didn't understand properly what the differences were. Then again, rvovk and I should've explained what we were doing better too. Could've saved us all a bit of typing (although it doesn't hurt the credit count ).

I'm only on here long enough to maintain my hosting credits at their current level cos I've found there to be very little I'm interested in lately.

If you're going to correct people, make sure the corrections you make are actually right. Rvovk has a / at the end of his meta http-equiv tag cos he's coding for an XHTML doctype, not an HTML one. Same goes for the example I posted: The <html> tag is in the XHTML doctype declaration (bottom line): <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN" "http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/;

And before your <head> tag, it is important to have a doctype declaration, e.g.: <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN" "http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/;For a more complete reference on doctypes and why they are important, check out A List Apart.

This article does a much better job of explaining it than I did above.

You actually don't have to worry about preloading if you put both states of your image into one file.Then simply do something like this: a:hover { background:url(image.jpg) 0 -10px no-repeat; }where the -10px equates to roughly half the height of your image (in this case the images are stacked on top of each other but you could have them side by side and reposition them horizontally). So what you're doing is when you roll over the link, you're pushing the off state out of the way and replacing it with the over state. Um, yeah, whatever you reckon mate. I think you'll find experienced web designers use the sort of technique rvovk has posted all the time.

Won't do me any good; we're not on mains gas.