Steerpike

Apologies for the lack of feedback - festive season, illness etc - the joys of life in Arctic-like UK! I downloaded and installed the scripts etc ... I think, like many users, I find the interpretation of css difficult to unravel to achieve the look for my own site. Anyway, I got there in the end, uploaded it and it looked good, worked fine etc. However, and this wasn't too apparent straight away, all of my NBSP's ( ) had been 'removed' from the entire site (100+ pages). The site contains quite a few reports and the impact of this was that I lost spacings between headings/paragraphs and so on. After much head scratching/Googl'ing I still couldn't find the answer. It was only when I deleted the news ticker files that the NBSP's magically re-appeared. My assumption was that, somehow, the news-ticker css was taking precedence/interfering with my master css file.

Thanks TC. I'll give it a go and report back.

I'm planning to add a news ticker on my website homepage to inform visitors of latest updates etc. I've found that by simply having a 'Latest Updates' page they just don't visit. I've tried searching around for something suitable but the Web appears to be full of a million sites trying to suck you in to pay for their 'ready-made' product - some of them are frankly awful. Can anyone suggest a way forward? Given the fact that I'm an 'intermediate' in terms of ability I'd prefer to keep things relatively straightforward (but not Marquee level!)

Thanks Peter - although my instincts based on past experience tell me that the minute I get to grips with PHP it will be replaced by something else as the 'preferred method'. So cynical for someone so young

I done a bit more work on this ... Firefox, Chrome, Opera & Safari for Windows all deal perfectly with the allowtransparency tag. Microsoft have declared that from IE8 onwards they will not support this, hence my white box in their browser. I couldn't get visibility: hidden to work. With apologies to Thomas et al, I came up with a workaround which is a simple blank html page with the backround colour set to match my light blue. Being borderless you can't 'see' the iframe until it's filled with the PDF. Sorry, but this is a needs must situation (as always). If I can compare us all to Halley's Comet with the likes of Thomas & co. as the nucleus and the rest of us newbies forming the rocky/dusty tail being dragged along in their wake! It may take me some time to catch up but any pointers to resources on what we're meant to replace iframes with would be appreciated.

Hi The background to this is that I have a fairly large PDF (4mb) that I'd like to display, among other content, within my webpage - but not until a link is clicked. In other words I don't want to burden casual visitors with an automatic 4mb download each time they visit this page. I've worked out how to achieve this, but I'd like to make the iFrame 'invisible' until such time as the link is clicked. At present my page has a light blue background and the entire iFrame (it's quite large at 675x900) shows up white. Despite all my efforts to set the 'allowtransparency' attribute to 'yes' or 'true' I'm still getting the white iFrame box appearing in both the local and online versions. I'm running on Dreamweaver CS3/IE8. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Just to conclude this thread I thought I'd add a bit more backround info to the OP ... It appears that they (paedophiles?) were particularly interested in one of our galleries of under 10s taking part in a fund-raiser and I just couldn't understand why they'd be showing a particular interest in it. I've since, however, come across the term ‘morphing’ which refers to the ‘stealing’ of a child’s face or body from sites like ours and, using sophisticated image editing software, they ‘morph’ the child’s image onto an existing photo of a child being abused – apparently this way they can sell the morphed images as ‘new on the market’ when, in fact, it’s an oldie with a new face or body skillfully replacing the actual child in the original photo. I can now see why they may have been interested in our site.

Thanks BlueDreamer - couldn't agree more - however as you rightly said in an earlier post "There's not a 100% foolproof way to do everything but everything you can do to minimise is a good thing." I'd be in cloud cuckoo land if I thought for one minute your average paedophile didn't know every hack under the sun to get hold of website content - but if I can make it a little less easy than say, right-clicking, they just might move on to easier prey - but if they're determined ... Tried the transparent GIF workaround and it is now my preferred method of 'shutting the door' (i.e. not locking it) to stop casual downloading. Cheers

ErisDS - thanks for the reply. There are two main agencies dealing with the subject:- The Internet Watch Foundation The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre Unfortunately their remit/reporting procedures seem to focus on someone who actually discovers child abuse images etc. online, as opposed to (as in my case) suspecting an undesireable is viewing/downloading photos from our site. I emailed the IWF almost 2 weeks ago asking for guidance and sent a reminder a couple of days ago - still no reply - not even an acknowledgement. From what I can see on the CEOPC website they too don't appear to have any means of reporting incidents like ours. I had cause to ask a question of the CEOPC a few months back and they took ages to reply - I think it was the third reminder that made it happen. It's really not good enough is it?

1&1 have replied with some code to use in .htaccess This is it (I've replaced the actual domain names as they are offensive) .... order allow,deny deny from .thisdomain.uk deny from .thatdomain.com allow from all Having read a few tutorials I didn't find the actual procedure for creating the .htaccess file too clear, so here's my take on it ... Use Notepad or similar to create a file named '.htaccess.txt'. Add text as show above. Save it as a .txt file. The file must be uploaded to your site root using the correct FTP transfer method (ASCII) - I'm running Dreamweaver CS3 and, although they say the file type (and therefore the transfer method) is 'automatically' detected, it didn't work first time. However, I managed the transfer successfully via my 1&1 Admin Control Panel. Oddly enough when I modified the local file again, using Dreamweaver to upload it to the remote site, it worked fine - perhaps DW recognised that the existing remote site file had previoulsy been transferred using ASCII and 'learned' what to do. Now here's the important bit ... You need to Rename the file on the remote site by removing the .txt extension. (Leaving the .txt extension on place renders the .htaccess file useless.) I'd also suggest that you test that the .htaccess file actually works by placing a link on another site. I used one of my JAlbum photo albums with a skin that allows the insertion of a link (e.g. Chameleon). Insert the albums' URL into your .htaccess file, upload it and then try to link from the JAlbum - if all is well you'll be blocked. (Ensure you clear your browser cache before you do this) Hope this all helps and once again many thank to all the contributors. One parting shot ... any opinions on how best to stop right-clicking to download images? I know there is a lot of info on this on the Web, but if anyone has found from experience the best way to do it I'd appreciate your advice.

Many thanks for all the replies it's much appreciated. I'm trying to elicit a response from 1&1 and as soon as I hear back I'll post to this topic. We've had a further visit from another porn site (Bluedreamer, belive it or not based in Germany). The first site to link to us was a dot me site (Montenegro) however I'm led to believe that they allow non 'me' countries to use this domain name - I've read perhaps 5,000 sites in the UK are using it.

Thanks for that - I've raised a query with our web hosts (1and1) to see if our package permits 'mod_rewrite' etc. I'll post again as soon as I hear from them and to advise if I've been successful in blocking the site.

I maintain a website for a youth club (8-12yrs) which contains several photo galleries of children (mainly participating in sports activities). I have complete editorial control over the content and I am very careful not to include photos which could be remotely suggestive or of interest to paedophiles etc. However, on checking my web statistics I realise that a referrers url has linked to us several times and it's clearly a porn site - what 'type' I don't know but having Google'd it, it warns of explicit adult content etc. I'm not inclined to visit to check where or how they are linking as it may conytain child pornography and you'll understand that's the last thing I can afford to have appearing on my 'sites visited' record. The Clubs' Child Protection Officer is investigating this but ... my question is - can I block a particular url/IP address from accessing our site? I'm aware that they could access the site from anywhere using our url but I want to block the link from the porn site.

Good point - to illustrate what's going on here I've created a test page at http://www.acoxgangs.com/new_site_zone/imagetest.html The large image was created from an original 420 x 385 jpeg image which had a white background. It was saved as a PSD and the white was replaced by #427BB0 to match the webpage background (also created by PS). Various other mods were carried out (drop shadow etc). This image was saved as a jpeg : Matte = none; Quality = 12; Baseline. This is the large image on the 'imagetest' webpage. Alongside the large image are several examples of resampled logos ... The original PSD image was saved using Save for Web : Jpeg; ICC Profile checked; Image re-Sized 40 x 37 px Bicubic; Quality 100 (resulting filesize 7kB) A gif version was created using the same method: Matte = nil; Selective channel; Diffusion; Lossy = 0; Transparency = 0; Image re-Sized 40 x 37 px Bicubic; (resulting filesize 3kB) Identical versions to those above were created with the exception that the resampling was setting was changed to bilinear in each case. Finally, the PSD file was resampled (Image>Image Size ...) and saved as a jpeg. Bottom line is that using Save for Web and resizing using bicubic quality (either jpeg/gif) creates the fine white line. Resizing without using the Save for Web feature, or changing the Save for Web setting to bilinear, doesn't result in the line appearing. It's nothing to do with code, matte settings etc. It would appear to be a 'flaw' (or a consequence) of applying bicubic resampling within the Save for Web feature. Hope this helps.

Hi Mesa The fine-white line disappeared when I changed the resampling method when using the Save for Web function (see earlier post). Dizi also felt it was the image, not the code, that was the culprit. I'm using DW CS3 in Design view and simply 'inserting' images - it deals with the code. I'm of the opinion that the single-pixel 'lightened' edge to the image was introduced during the compression performed by save-for-web. No idea why Just to recap ... http://www.acoxgangs.com/new_site_zone/index_04.html is the page with the fine white line showing around the images (scroll to bottom of page) when they were resampled using bicubic compression, and ... http://www.acoxgangs.com/new_site_zone/index_05.html is the page with the bilinear rather than bicubic resampling of some of the logos at the foot of the page. Obviously none of this wouldn't have shown up if I was inserting into a white background. If I can do anything at this end that could re-create a few PS scenarios along with the code I'd be happy to help.