Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / UK Photography / June 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Wedding Photographers - Put your Clients Photos online and take orders!

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
WebCom Systems - 23 Jun 2005 09:11 GMT
Photos Online is a fully e-commerce enabled digital photo database
specifically designed for online proofing and ordering for the
photographic industry.

All you need is a Paypal account to take orders on our system.
Cost is £50+VAT setup (one-off payment) and £25+VAT monthly fee.

With this you can post client's wedding photographs for anyone to order

reprints/enlargements, etc.

All photo albums are protected by a "Film password" for security.

Further details can be found at http://www.photos-online.biz.

View the test account at http://www.photos-online.biz/m­yphotos.php4
and
use password "test".

Regards,

Photos Online
07050 184360
GwG - 23 Jun 2005 15:43 GMT
Photos Online is a fully e-commerce enabled digital photo database
specifically designed for online proofing and ordering for the
photographic industry.

All you need is a Paypal account to take orders on our system.
Cost is £50+VAT setup (one-off payment) and £25+VAT monthly fee.

With this you can post client's wedding photographs for anyone to order

reprints/enlargements, etc.

All photo albums are protected by a "Film password" for security.

Further details can be found at

View the test account at
and
use password "test".

Disregarding the fact that this was a commercial advert, i.e. spam, the
second link did not work, and when I worked around your mistake, no wedding
photographs were available, not a very good advert for a supposedly
professional, and expensive service.
WebCom Systems - 23 Jun 2005 20:16 GMT
Just to clarify for anyone who is not capable of using a keyboard, the
url is http://www.photos-online.biz/myphotos.php4.

Log on with the password "test" and you will see a sample selection of
Wedding photos.

Incidentally I NEVER send out spam.

The message was intended to be relevant and useful to the readers of
this newsgroup. ie Photographers
Roger Whitehead - 23 Jun 2005 21:16 GMT
> Just to clarify for anyone who is not capable of using a keyboard

That's a good way to get people on your side.

Signature

Roger

GwG - 23 Jun 2005 21:56 GMT
> Just to clarify for anyone who is not capable of using a keyboard, the
> url is <snip>

Just to clarify for those that can use a keyboard, if you go back and click
on the
original link posted, it now says:-
"The page cannot be found"
but strangely, the link in the second post works.

> Incidentally I NEVER send out spam.

Commercial advertising in most newsgroups is spam.
I refer you to the following link, which has the charter of
uk.rec.photo.misc
http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.rec.photo.misc.html
Note the line:-
No advertising of products, jobs or services is allowed in this group;
please use uk.rec.photo.adverts.
WebCom Systems - 23 Jun 2005 23:35 GMT
That comment was meant soley for the individual "GwG" who obviously
sought to discredit my web software. And who, incidentally is rather
shy about giving out his real email address.

I suspect that GwG is probably from one of the rival companies doing a
similar package to mine. Hence, his sarcastic comments on my
"professional and expensive service".

Please be assured that my software is stable, secure, functional and
thoroughly tested. And is now operating with several satisfied
customers.

Best regards,

www.Photos-Online.biz
GwG - 24 Jun 2005 00:05 GMT
> That comment was meant soley for the individual "GwG" who obviously
> sought to discredit my web software. And who, incidentally is rather
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> similar package to mine. Hence, his sarcastic comments on my
> "professional and expensive service".

From the comments above, you seem to be very naive about newsgroups.. You
posted an advert in a group where adverts are not allowed, and then, when it
was pointed out that the advert was inappropriate, and even if it had been
appropriate, it was unprofessional, due to not being checked properly before
submission, you try and deceive everyone here by stating that the mistake in
the first post was not a mistake, but was the fault of the persons clicking
the link, and insisting that.the advert was not spam, which it clearly was.
To top it all, you then accuse me of being a rival, offering the same
service, which is laughable.

You got flamed for breaking the rules, accept it, and learn from it.
Neil Barker - 24 Jun 2005 00:17 GMT
> That comment was meant soley for the individual "GwG" who obviously
> sought to discredit my web software. And who, incidentally is rather
> shy about giving out his real email address.

 (SNIP)

You know, there is an ancient Usenet proverb, which says, "When in
hole, stop digging".

You would be advised to follow it.

Signature

Neil Barker

Phil Kyle - 26 Jun 2005 02:40 GMT
>> That comment was meant soley for the individual "GwG" who obviously
>> sought to discredit my web software. And who, incidentally is rather
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> You would be advised to follow it.

PKB #69877990099999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999

Signature

Phil Kyle™  
Uno
Dos
Tres
Cuatro
CINCO!!!!!!

"Be very aware that my willingness
to continue to criticise your sig
is infinite." -- Neil Barker

Tony Parkinson - 24 Jun 2005 18:56 GMT
> I suspect that GwG is probably from one of the rival companies doing a
> similar package to mine. Hence, his sarcastic comments on my
> "professional and expensive service".

Do you write these things specifically to amuse us ?
WebCom Systems - 24 Jun 2005 23:57 GMT
Well there's no such thing as bad publicity!

OK, joking aside. The reason I responded to the initial critisism was
to clarify that the site works and works very well. I should know, I
wrote it.

It does what it says on the tin, Photos Online for ordering reprints,
no adverts, no links, no popup ads.

I'd also rather not perpetuate any further online arguements, so if my
original message was unsolicited then ok, delete it Mr Moderator, and I
wont post any more. And please accept my apologies.
Neil Barker - 25 Jun 2005 00:50 GMT
> Well there's no such thing as bad publicity!

A common myth. Tell that to Gerald Ratner.

   (Snip0)

> I'd also rather not perpetuate any further online arguements, so if my
> original message was unsolicited then ok, delete it Mr Moderator, and I
> wont post any more. And please accept my apologies.

Further demonstrating how little you know of how Usenet/Netnews works.
Uk.rec.photo.misc is not a moderated newsgroup and therefore has no
moderator. It does, however, have a charter.

Signature

Neil Barker

Phil Kyle - 26 Jun 2005 02:41 GMT
>> Well there's no such thing as bad publicity!
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Uk.rec.photo.misc is not a moderated newsgroup and therefore has no
> moderator. It does, however, have a charter.

You are a self-appointed mon^H^H^H^Hmoderator.

Signature

Phil Kyle™  
Uno
Dos
Tres
Cuatro
CINCO!!!!!!

"Be very aware that my willingness
to continue to criticise your sig
is infinite." -- Neil Barker

Tony Polson - 25 Jun 2005 09:33 GMT
>Well there's no such thing as bad publicity!
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>original message was unsolicited then ok, delete it Mr Moderator, and I
>wont post any more. And please accept my apologies.

If you don't want to perpetuate an argument, stop posting here.

Apology not accepted.  Don't post here, where your adverts are
unwelcome.  Post to uk.rec.photo.adverts.

And please don't reply here, because that is yet another advert.
WebCom Systems - 25 Jun 2005 15:01 GMT
OK
Tony Polson - 25 Jun 2005 20:08 GMT
>OK

Never one to miss an opportunity, eh?

With your attitude, you are the last person I would ever wish to buy
products or services from.  Other potential customers will no doubt
have taken note.
Tony Parkinson - 25 Jun 2005 22:39 GMT
> OK, joking aside. The reason I responded to the initial critisism was
> to clarify that the site works and works very well. I should know, I
> wrote it.

The Only joke I see is you and your poxy little website that you're unlikely
to geerate any business for from this newsgroup for beong the low-life
spamming toe-rag scrote that you're proving yourself to be to an ever
increasing degree with each post.

> I'd also rather not perpetuate any further online arguements,

Bye then, don't let the door hit your a.s on the way out !!

> so if my
> original message was unsolicited then ok, delete it Mr Moderator, and I
> wont post any more. And please accept my apologies.

How about you take your apology and shove it where the sun don't shine along
with your website
Roger Whitehead - 26 Jun 2005 07:21 GMT
> The Only joke I see is you and your poxy little website...

And another one for the killfile, for being tedious and unoriginal.

Signature

Roger

neoduck_2004@yahoo.co.uk - 26 Jun 2005 09:35 GMT
Actually Tony Parkinson, I think that is a little unfair.

All you've done is dragged yourself down to a level lower than any
spammer by throwing insults around in a rather childish (and not to
mention illiterate) manner.

Try not to devalue this newsgroup with your continued abuse.

Afterall the guy was only defending his software against a critisism
that was IMHO uncalled for.
GwG - 26 Jun 2005 10:15 GMT
> Afterall the guy was only defending his software against a critisism
> that was IMHO uncalled for.

As the one that 'criticised', that is also a little unfair, especially since
I didn't criticise his software.

The criticism was for:-
a) Posting an advert in a group where the charter forbids it, (which was
unprofessional).
b) Putting a link in the advert that did not work, (which was
unprofessional), and which the OP then said was the fault of the persons
clicking on the link, (again unprofessional). He then included a link that
did work, (in a later post), and seemed to try and convince everyone that
this was the same link used in the original post.
c) Complaining I mentioned that a £50 set up charge, and then £25.00 per
month, was expensive for the service, which it is, especially when compared
to companies like Photobox, who do a similar service for nothing.
d) The OP denying that he made any mistakes, or that he had posted any spam,
when he clearly had, and then accusing me of being a competitor, for
pointing out the mistakes he had made.

If this is how he behaves when he makes a mistake in a newsgroup, how is he
going to behave to a client who has a problem with his services? Will he
deny that the problem exists, or will he accuse the client of  causing the
problems, and refuse to do anything about them?
Tony Polson - 26 Jun 2005 16:07 GMT
>> Afterall the guy was only defending his software against a critisism
>> that was IMHO uncalled for.
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>deny that the problem exists, or will he accuse the client of  causing the
>problems, and refuse to do anything about them?

Well said.  You hit the nail on the head.
WebCom Systems - 26 Jun 2005 17:05 GMT
GwG,

I think I should clarify one thing.

Photos-Online is aimed at a very specific market, ie the Professional
Photographer doing predominantly Weddings and Events.

I've seen the Photobox site and it is an excellent service, certainly
covering a wide market. They obviously make their money on volume of
orders with a percentage commission on every order.

Photos-Online, however, takes no commission. It's just a flat monthly
fee.
GwG - 26 Jun 2005 18:25 GMT
> I've seen the Photobox site and it is an excellent service, certainly
> covering a wide market. They obviously make their money on volume of
> orders with a percentage commission on every order.

Photobox do charge a commission, (10%), but they have no set up fee, and no
monthly charges.
It is possible for the photographer to set the price of the prints, so the
10% commission can be added to the purchase price of the photographs, and
passed on to the customer. Once the files have been uploaded to the Photobox
site, Photobox take care of the website, ordering, printing, distribution,
and collection of the money, easy, and no £25.00 per month ongoing outlay,
even if the client only makes £20.00 in sales.

I see that you are still using your correct email address in your posts,
(remember criticising me for not using mine)? There is a valid reason why
people do not use their correct email addresses in newsgroup posts, this is
because they can be easily harvested by spam robots, and if you are lucky
enough to get included on a distribution CD/DVD of email addresses, (which
you probably will be), you can say goodbye to any hope of easily checking
incoming mail, as it could be outnumbered 100 to 1 by spam mail.
Donald Gray - 26 Jun 2005 12:57 GMT
[]
>Try not to devalue this newsgroup with your continued abuse.
[]
Well said!
Signature

Donald Gray
Please remove the "SafetyPin." from my email address.
www.websilk.co.uk/digital
www.websilk.co.uk/digital/gallery1-fs.htm

Donald Gray - 26 Jun 2005 12:55 GMT
>Photos Online is a fully e-commerce enabled digital photo database
>specifically designed for online proofing and ordering for the
>photographic industry.
[]
>Further details can be found at http://www.photos-online.biz.

[]
short critique

1) Inhibiting a right click to stop folks looking at the HTML code is
so crass these days - it can be over-ridden by using the menu "View |
Source"

2) In your Dreamweaver Template (newbase.dwt) you really should
consider adding the meta tags such as....:

<meta name="keywords" content="">
<meta name="author" content="">
<meta name="copyright" content="">
<meta name="robots" content="INDEX, FOLLOW, ALL">
<meta name="revisit-after" content="30 days">
<meta name="document-class" content="Living Document">
<meta name="document-classification" content="hobby">
<meta name="document-rights" content="Copyrighted Work">
<meta name="document-type" content="Web Page">
<meta name="document-rating" content="Safe for Kids">
<meta name="document-distribution" content="Global">
<meta name="document-state" content="Dynamic">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Language" content="EN-GB">
<meta name="Publisher" content="">
<meta name="Publisher-Email" content="">
<meta name="description" content="">

....To name but a few... You ain't got none in your source code....Not
No How...

3) I will NEVER deal with an Internet company who does not give a
clear 'real address' and a land line phone number

Using a PO Box number, a mobile phone number and email as the only
contact method smacks of 'getting ready for a quick getaway

I suggest you add a proper address and phone number....

HTH
Signature

Donald Gray
Please remove the "SafetyPin." from my email address.
www.websilk.co.uk/digital
www.websilk.co.uk/digital/gallery1-fs.htm

Liz - 26 Jun 2005 16:33 GMT
> 2) In your Dreamweaver Template (newbase.dwt) you really should
> consider adding the meta tags such as....:

[snip 730 bytes ]
The current general consensus seems to be that meta tags are *not*
needed nowadays, other than meta descrption and robots.
See, for example,
http://searchenginewatch.com/webmasters/article.php/2167931
(Interestingly, not being a dreamweaver user, I'd always thought that
the large list of metatags you quote were automatically inserted in DW
files: I've only ever seen them on DW-generated pages!)

The idea that the bloke who criticised the OP must be a rival is
hysterical: I once emailed a bloke from whom I had been considering a
four-figure purchase because his website didn't work on any of my
browsers (I later found out it *only* worked on IE). I got an
extremely stroppy reply from him, and said I was obviously just trying
to get him to pay me to redo his site (he claimed to have paid a
'professional web designer' to do it). I was nothing of the sort, but
when I suggested a couple of basic HTML books, he suggested I must be
getting some sort of kickback from the publisher: despite the fact
that I didn't even have the book titles linked to amazon or anyone
else.
Anyway, he obviously lost any potential interest I might have had in
his service, and given that I also told people on a couple of relevant
mailing lists, he lost a lot of money by his stupid attitude. Rather
like the current OP.

Besides, is there really a market for this sort of thing?
Surely most people would like to keep the whole thing under their own
quality control: web presence and finishing? (Just wondering.)

Slainte
Signature

Virtual Liz now at http://www.v-liz.com
Kenya; Tanzania; Namibia; India; Seychelles; Galapagos
"I speak of Africa and golden joys"

WebCom Systems - 26 Jun 2005 16:52 GMT
Donald,

Thanks for the constructive critisism, I've taken it all onboard.

The issue with the metatags is probably fair enough. (just something I
havent got round to yet).

And the right-click thing. OK, I accept this is a little unnecessary
these days. although I have seen worse. There is one photographic site
which (somehow) disables the clipboard and fills it with their company
name!

Point 3? Well the PO box thing is very handy (and cheap) and saves me
having to put my home address on the net. The phone number you see on
the web site is not actually a mobile number, it is a purchased number
which can be redirected anywhere, landline, mobile, etc. Again very
good if you want to purchase a number for life that wont be affected by
you moving office.

My business is also fully VAT registered, which make me a bit less
likely to seek a "quick getaway".

Still, I appreaciate your comments.
Tony Polson - 27 Jun 2005 00:16 GMT
>Donald,
>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
>Still, I appreaciate your comments.

Why are you continuing to post here in violation of the Charter of
this newsgroup?
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.