peterpearson

Contact them and tell them to remove it immediatly, and if they don't contact the host and tell them to take it down. The hosts are usually breaking the law by hosting copyrighted content but unfortunately Chinese and Russian hosts have a bad reputation for actually doing anything about this.

Most of them were thick enough to copy my whole site along with the analytics code which continued to send data back to my account. It's allowed me to find sites within days of them first appearing elsewhere on the web and usually long before they get indexed. From Google Analytics select Visitors > Network Properties > Hostnames to see where the code is being hosted. I also found one using http://www.copyscape.com/ but this is only effective if it is indexed and the text is the same.

Thought you guys and gals might like to see this. http://www.peter-pearson.com/steals/ I knew plagarism was pretty common on the net... but having my portfolio stolen 9 times in 4 months kinda takes the biscuit.

Ha, suprised this is still going. I go AWOL for a month and it's still alive when I get back. Since starting this thread I've gone with Clook.. although I stillll haven't actually flicked the switch to make use of it. I've also signed a client up with PearTree. No complaints yet!

Ah ha! I wondered if there was a connection. Nice site.

Just seen this on the front page of Digg: http://www.webdesignerhelp.co.uk/index.php...1/#comment-2781 Recognised Dizi, Russell Bishop and Todd Adams sites from the forum... expect some traffic today! Provided you have it Google analytics should have a nice spike in it soon. Well Done.

I designed and built that site over several months so to see somebody passing off that much of my work as their own hacks me off. If you have a look at the source code you will see it has been stolen in whole, the html and css are identical, every every class and id has the same name. Every freaking image has the same file name as my images, they have just been swapped over. I'm guessing the image dimensions are also exactly the same. The author clearly knows nothing about web development, there is excess css and javascript for things which are not in their verison of the site. The last image box has even been left in with a 'what will we put here next' type message because they can't figure out how to remove it. No it doesn't look exactly like mine, but if it was the other way around and theirs looked identical to mine but had been recoded from scratch I doubt many people would still be telling me not to bother.

and coated with

and cheese on

The code from my site has been stolen again but the 'redesign' of the visuals I must admit is bloodly awesome! Have a look I almost feel bad kicking something like that off the web... but oh well! I'm off to contact the designer and the host. How did I find it? Silly fool left my analytics code in there. Second person I've caught using this method this month! In case you didn't know, go to google analytics > visitors > network properties > hostnames to see where your analytics code is being hosted! Any IP addresses are likely just people who have downloaded your code, so not a lot you can do unless its online.

Go for it. I can't possibly see how it could damage your reputation and I'd imagine the new contacts would make it worthwhile before you've even consider how much you will learn. I'm currently looking for an internship at a London agency as applying for junior roles without industry experience isn't getting me anywhere. I'm hoping to do this full-time for at least a couple of months.

This looks promising. Think I might just give them a go. I wanted to sign up as soon as I saw the site... it's pretty.

C:\Documents and Settings\Luke\Desktop\photoshop\Bannercopy.jpg is an absolute path pointing to a file on your computer. This won't me much good when you move the site on a web host as the folder structure on the host will be completely different, your image won't be where you are pointing it to. Instead use a relative path, if you have your index page and jpg in the same folder you can just use: background-image: url(bannercopy.jpg); That just says the image is in the same place as the .html file To keep things tidy it is best to keep your images in there own folder (in the same folder as your index page). If you call this folder images your code would be: background-image: url(images/bannercopy.jpg); If your site is online you can also use an absolute path which points to exactly where the file is: background-image: url(http://www.mywebsite.com/images/bannercopy.jpg); The problem with this is if you ever change the structure of you site or want to change to a different domain you would need to change every instance of this in the code.

Wait wait wait, I stole that comment off the internet and used it in this topic earlier today. You can't just go and steal my hard stolen comment. Thats like theft or something.

Yes the background image is going to be one size and it won't look the same for everbody (without perhaps some serious and probably ill advised messing around with javascript). Showing us the image you want to use might be useful. There are different ways of making images work well across a variety of resolutions.

ul.navList li { clear: left; } Will hopefully do the trick for the nav.

To quote a comment I saw the other day, it should read: "Internet Explorer does not support the Internet"

And my favourite site at the moment http://www.bio-bak.nl/?ref-reallyflippingcool It's flash, shock horror. But it is insanely cool.

It is basically done with a fixed image on the body (the coloured lines) and some overlayed png images which mask the background. As the pngs move over the fixed background you get the sense of movement. I've done something similar on my site, there is a brief explantion on the effect halfway down this topic. Also have a look at this prototype for a simplified version http://www.peter-pearson.com/newdesigns/portfolio2/

Haha! Brilliant. I sat there wondering how that post might get ripped apart

This is what web designers call getting passionate about the subject. Everybody else calls it being anal. A further example of being anal would be me pointing out to Dizi that he should actually have used the word deprecated in the following sentence. There is an often over looked difference between the words deprecate and depreciate. Pretty rich coming from me, I have the writing style of a 12 year old.

Unless these sites are aimed at the design community 1920x1200 would be plenty I'd say. Of course it depends on the image also, there's no point making it look good a high resolution monitors if it is detracting from the appearance for the 1024px majority.

I would use jQuery for this. There are a number of gallery plugins you can use, or it shouldn't be too difficult to code your own.

For the record | is most commonly called a vertical bar, although the pipe is sometimes used. Makes it a whole lot easier to google something when you have a real name!

Thanks for the comments guys. Wesh looks promising but £55 a month is a bit pricey. Can anybody else recommend CSNewmedia? Perhaps I should see how the bandwidth usage pans out next month before making the decision. I don't supppose I'm going to be lucky enough to sit on the front page of Best Web Gallery every month... Anyway I'm still keen to hear any further reviews!