This topic was started in Currys branch numbers thread in Geographical Chat section. I thought it more appropriate to continue in its own thread here.

The 'unverified' list can be reached from a button at the bottom of the search page. Maybe more information on how to use the site on the home page.

I think (I would, wouldn't I?) my suggestion about amalgamation etc. is more viable.  The 'Unverified' table is a real mess - as is to be expected because it's just everybody's entries all jumbled together - and is not even in alphabetical order at the start.

Having to search twice is silly when it could be made unnecessary.

That's four-pennyworth now.  I stop there.  

wrote on Feb 13^th, 2005 at 4:17pm:

Having to search twice is silly when it could be made unnecessary. That's four-pennyworth now.  I stop there.

I think what Dave and DaveM actually need are more trusted testers that they could share out the work with in some way.  As this site gets more and more well known the workload in adding new numbers is obviously increasing exponentially.

Although I suppose when this site has really done its job the work will then be more in deleting now redundant 0870 number listings.  Or we can at least dream of the arrival of that great day.

You might not notice it but is coming, the number of small ads in the weekend press were dominated with 0870 numbers.

Now they are scarce and even the traditional home of the 870 number - the travel agents - has started to diminish.

Only one of the major airlines advertising now has the number (British Airways).

The problem won't go away though because when we succeed, which we undoubtedly will, there is 0845 to contend with.

The homepage needs more information on how to search for a number. At the same time it needs to be concise and to the point so as to attract the passing visitor. Maybe put brief information on the homepage with links to other pages going into more detail.

Merging the unverifed and verified lists is a good one, just make sure that it is clear which entries are which.

As far as the forums go, I think that "Geographical Numbers Chat" section needs breaking up. How, I'm not too sure. Maybe we could have a new section for talking about particular companies,but not for requesting numbers. This new section would include replies from companies/organisations, FOI requests, posts about companies who refuse to take calls on geographical alternatives etc.

[quote author=Dave  link=1108310388/0#4 date=1108394976]As far as the forums go, I think that "Geographical Numbers Chat" section needs breaking up. How, I'm not too sure. Maybe we could have a new section for talking about particular companies,but not for requesting numbers. This new section would include replies from companies/organisations, FOI requests, posts about companies who refuse to take calls on geographical alternatives etc.[/quote]
Dave,

I can't agree with you on this.

This forum can hardly be described as a hive of activity compared to many other similar forums on the web.

In those circumstances its actually far better to have all the threads on one place where the few people who look at them are likely to come across them without too much difficulty.

The layout of the site, in particular the front page, could do with improvement. How about a box to search for a number right there, instead of having to click one of the links at the top? We could take a leaf out of the book of directory enquiries sites such as 118118.com who do just that. The search for a company name or a number should be unified, rather than having separate fields for each.

As for unverified entries, they should be included in the main database, flagged appropriately. There could be a checkbox next to the search field: "Include unverified entries" (perhaps with a small link to a pop-up explaining what it means).

The format of the data also needs sorting out. Some extra fields are needed, and perhaps displaying it as a table isn't the best idea. The "other info" column contains too may different types of data: fax numbers, addresses, etc. When there are branches of a store, we need to know which one a number is for. So should that go in the "Company Name" field or not? Really an extra "Location" field would be useful. Search for "Currys" to see what I'm talking about... The same thing goes for organisations with numbers for different departments.

If the entries were displayed in a sort of "card index" format rather than a table, you could have many different fields: fax, location, premium rate no., comments, etc. They would only be displayed if there was data for that particular entry.

I think the site is fantastic, but I believe it would be greatly improved if the search facility also showed results for "Unverified Entries", but maybe with an asterisk pointing out that it is "not yet verified".

This would save searching twice & may even prevent people trying the site once & never returning because they think the database is too small.

Is there any reason why I cannot copy and paste my 0870/0845 numbers into the "Search for Alternative No." box?  This would save a lot of time and prevent inaccuracies. ???

[quote author=lesleyforr  link=1108310388/0#8 date=1111155221]Is there any reason why I cannot copy and paste my 0870/0845 numbers into the "Search for Alternative No." box?  This would save a lot of time and prevent inaccuracies. ???[/quote]No.  That's what I do.

May I suggest that one way to very much improve this site and its effectiveness in the campaign against the abuses with these numbers would be:

1) To add the history and full details of these scams in a separate section of the site, describing all the various tricks being used etc. so that newcomers could quickly get up to date and understand the totality of what is going on;

2) To integrate the campaign action into the site and provide submission templates and other assistance to all who wish to participate in Ofcom responses when there are any new ones.

This would enable the site to be more powerful I think in representing all of these abuses with NGNs, not just those with 0870?

Just a suggestion.

Now it's even worse, the "Unverified Entries" which used to be on 1 long page are now on 22 pages.

This makes using the Find facility in Internet Explorer (Ctrl+f or Edit>Find) very tedious to have to repeat the action for 22 pages.

[quote author=dorf  link=1108310388/0#10 date=1111166564]1) To add the history and full details of these scams in a separate section of the site, describing all the various tricks being used etc. so that newcomers could quickly get up to date and understand the totality of what is going on; [/quote]
Good idea. This would be useful for journalists researching the subject.

[quote author=coolsparx  link=1108310388/0#11 date=1111429879]Now it's even worse, the "Unverified Entries" which used to be on 1 long page are now on 22 pages.

This makes using the Find facility in Internet Explorer (Ctrl+f or Edit>Find) very tedious to have to repeat the action for 22 pages.[/quote]

I agree this latest change is a huge step backwards.

It would be better to have them all on one page but in alphabetic order rather than just jumbled as they were before the change.

Beter still integrate them with the main list but show them in a different colour to indicate that they are not checked and so there is a highish probability that there may be a problem.

Yes that would probably seem to make more sense and could possibly take off the workload pressure of authentication?

[quote author=dorf  link=1108310388/0#14 date=1111441809]Yes that would probably seem to make more sense and could possibly take off the workload pressure of authentication?[/quote]

We have to overcome our Moderators perfectionist tendencies though. ;D

The problem with being a perfectionist is that it can sometimes stand in the way of getting the job done ;)

Well that could help, because they could then have more time, when there is a large volume of new unverified entries to "perfectly" check and verify them?

[quote author=NonGeographicalMan  link=1108310388/0#13 date=1111437215]I agree this latest change is a huge step backwards.

It would be better to have them all on one page but in alphabetic order rather than just jumbled as they were before the change.

Beter still integrate them with the main list but show them in a different colour to indicate that they are not checked and so there is a highish probability that there may be a problem.[/quote]
I agree.
I agree.
I agree totally.

There is no way anone is going to wade through the Unverified entries as they are presented at the moment - you can't even specify a start letter!

Apologies for this.

The problem was due to the growing number of entries being added, I was trying to find a way to present it in an easier to use format - Unfortunately while doing this it has made it not very user-friendly at all.

There are quite a few improvements being planned - including searching on all numbers (including unverified), which should be coming fairly soon.

In the meantime I have temporarily put it back as it was.

Thanks again for your support and comments,

Daniel

[quote author=Forum Admin  link=1108310388/15#18 date=1111442836]There are quite a few improvements being planned - including searching on all numbers (including unverified), which should be coming fairly soon.

In the meantime I have temporarily put it back as it was.
[/quote]

Daniel thanks for this good news about big improvements coming in the future and for putting things back how they were.

Also its good to see you are back from holiday.  Did you go anywhere nice?

Also keep an ear out for an interview on You & Yours this coming Thursday. ;)

[quote author=NonGeographicalMan  link=1108310388/15#19 date=1111443185]
Also its good to see you are back from holiday.  Did you go anywhere nice?

Also keep an ear out for an interview on You & Yours this coming Thursday. ;)[/quote]

Stayed in this country - just needed a week away  ::)

I take it you have recorded an interview ?? - If you did, did you happen to mention this website at all ?? :)

Thanks
Daniel

[quote author=Forum Admin  link=1108310388/15#20 date=1111443422]I take it you have recorded an interview ?? - If you did, did you happen to mention this website at all ?? :)
[/quote]
I will have to check back with my friend who was interviewed.

But surely this site must be well known by now though?  Or at least much better known than it was?

How many hits a day or a week does it get compared to 12 months ago or 2 years ago?

[quote author=coolsparx  link=1108310388/0#11 date=1111429879]This makes using the Find facility in Internet Explorer (Ctrl+f or Edit>Find) very tedious to have to repeat the action for 22 pages.[/quote]
It's far easier using 'Find as You Type' in Mozilla Firefox. Just enter, either part of the company's name, NGN, or geographical area code; no need for the Find window like in IE.  ;)

[quote author=Dave  link=1108310388/15#22 date=1111453254]
It's far easier using 'Find as You Type' in Mozilla Firefox. Just enter, either part of the company's name, NGN, or geographical area code; no need for the Find window like in IE.  ;)[/quote]

I guess by using IE6 I must be as dumb as people who stick with BT then. :o

Although I am probably much keener to get away from using Microsoft Outlook than IE6, my only excuse is that I had a CD that contained it and its better than Outlook Express.

What mail packages would you recommend.

[quote author=NonGeographicalMan  link=1108310388/15#23 date=1111480590]What mail packages would you recommend.[/quote]
Well I use OE, so I couldn't recommend any different ones!

I consider Mozilla Thunderbird is worth a look, but the hassle of changing over emails and account settings etc makes it more tedious to change mail client than browser.

You don't necessarily have to change your e-mail client. You can change your browser and keep your previous e-mail client such as Outlook or Outlook Express. That is what I do with Mozilla.

[quote author=dorf  link=1108310388/15#25 date=1111506709]You don't necessarily have to change your e-mail client. You can change your browser and keep your previous e-mail client such as Outlook or Outlook Express. That is what I do with Mozilla.[/quote]

Dave was talking about the hassles involved in changing email clients though not web browsers.

NGM,

I have re-read what Dave wrote and that is still not the way I understand what he meant.

Perhaps Dave can clarify what he actually meant? Sorry if I got it wrong Dave.

In any case isn't this getting off topic?

[quote author=dorf  link=1108310388/15#27 date=1111515649]Perhaps Dave can clarify what he actually meant? Sorry if I got it wrong Dave.[/quote]
I too use Firefox and OE. I never said that you have to change both together, they are independant of each other.


It is easy to change to a different browser.

To use a different mail client, one must move all emails and account settings.

OK, sorry Dave. I did get it wrong.

Having had my icon stolen I have attempted twice to download a unique one. It seems that you can only download one from a web site, which seems rather peculiar.

Then when you attempt to do that it does not seem to work? Dave, have you got any suggestions? Has anyone ever actually been able to do this? Why can you not download one in a normal way?

[quote author=dorf  link=1108310388/30#30 date=1112983532]Having had my icon stolen I have attempted twice to download a unique one. It seems that you can only download one from a web site, which seems rather peculiar. [/quote]
AFAIK you can't upload avatars onto Saynoto0870. You can link to one from another site. If you have your own site, you could put it on there.

I suppose if someone wanted to 'steal' your avatar, there's nothing you can do as it's just like a picture on a website.

I have tried that (putting it on one of my own sites) but I have not been able to get it to link successfully.

I repeat my question - has anyone ever actually been able to do this yet and get a successful working icon installed from their own site or another url?

In the mean time I have borrowed yours - no it's a joke only; I will discard it again as soon as you have seen it!

Dorf, you are not paying attention!

1. I sent you an IM yesterday.

You are welcome to help yourself to any picture on my site if you want.

I changed my avatar three times yesterday.

juby

There are an increasing number of new members requesting geographical numbers without posting basic information. Why do people not look at the thread ** Before posting, please read this for tips ** at the top of the Requests section, which points to the Guide? How could it be made clearer (short of jumping out of the screen and hitting them in the face).

Do they think that there is some magical way of finding them? Do they think that we are psychic?  ::)

[quote author=Dave  link=1108310388/30#34 date=1113250699]Do they think that there is some magical way of finding them? Do they think that we are psychic?  ::)[/quote]

Perhaps these are the same bunch of ever optimistic people who buy £5 worth of lottery tickets twice a week every week or who rack up their mobile phone bill by playing the text question game on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire.

As the old saying goes there's one born every minute.

[quote author=Forum Admin  link=1108310388/15#18 date=1111442836]....There are quite a few improvements being planned - including searching on all numbers (including unverified), which should be coming fairly soon....[/quote]
Daniel,

Is it possible in the meantime to amend the text at the top of the Search page and mention about checking the 'Unverified List' (possibly highlighting this in bold) as well?

I believe people are reading the paragraph at the top and searching but are not looking at the bottom of the page where it mentions your unverified list.  I, myself, at first didn't notice this but my excuse(!) is that I still have my resolution on 600x800 and therefore until I scrolled down the page I didn't even know there was an unverified section for us to view.

Many thanks


Kev.

wrote on Feb 13^th, 2005 at 4:17pm:

I think (I would, wouldn't I?) my suggestion about amalgamation etc. is more viable.  The 'Unverified' table is a real mess - as is to be expected because it's just everybody's entries all jumbled together - and is not even in alphabetical order at the start. Having to search twice is silly when it could be made unnecessary. That's four-pennyworth now.  I stop there.

I agree- it's a pain having to scroll through a huge list for a couple of entries.  Why not just have  a checkbox against the search that says: "Include unverified entries", and display the unverified ones in a very distinct manner (e.g. red text or a different colout background)?

How does a number get promoted to "verified", anyway?

For an unverified number, can we have a voting buttom to click to say: "I tried this and it worked"?  Log against ID/password/IP, and if there are enough votes, promote it?  By the same token, there should be a "I used this and it's pants!" button on the "verified" entries- I'm sure some of the companies will change numbers to protect their revenue.

By the way, I have just realised that I never posted on this topic that I had discovered what the problem with Icons/Avatars is on this site.

For some peculiar reason when you link an Avatar to this forum from a url it is visible only to those who use IE. It seems that only IE displays those Avatars. I have tried three other browsers and none of them show any of these Avatars including Firefox which is the one I normally use.

So guys - it seems your personal Avatars which you think are linked to this site and that everyone can see are only seen by those using IE!

wrote on Jul 6^th, 2005 at 6:40pm:

By the way, I have just realised that I never posted on this topic that I had discovered what the problem with Icons/Avatars is on this site. For some peculiar reason when you link an Avatar to this forum from a url it is visible only to those who use IE. It seems that only IE displays those Avatars. I have tried three other browsers and none of them show any of these Avatars including Firefox which is the one I normally use. So guys - it seems your personal Avatars which you think are linked to this site and that everyone can see are only seen by those using IE!

Beg to differ- I'm using Mozilla and I can see avatars, including those served from URLs.

And I can also on Firefox, IE, and DeepNet.

I think some of your browser options may need attention.

What specific attention?

Do you mean a reduction of browser security level? If so I think not. The very reason I use a different browser from IE is that I require a better level of security!

It seems to me (and an increasing number of other thinking users) that a continuously escalating number of site providers who fatuously follow the vane and senseless trend and mandate various security breaching vogue requirements for their web sites to be accessed need to learn the lesson of compatibility.

If you have a shop and you have a big notice in the  window: "Anyone who is not wearing red shoes, a green hat and a pink pullover will not be allowed into this shop to browse or purchase anything," you will very much limit your clientele, your turnover and potential profits. Yet this is what many sites do today, and their young, inexperienced and ignorant constructors have no understanding of commercial constraints and marketing; and their managements have lost or never had proper control of what is going on. They do not understand that compatibility is the name of the game if you want to interface with the maximum volume of traffic possible.

It is all a bit like 0870 numbers really. If a company mandates these then as the word gets around and even the essentially ignorant and inept awake they will loose a great deal of their customers and profits.

wrote on Jul 6^th, 2005 at 8:52pm:

What specific attention? Do you mean a reduction of browser security level? If so I think not. The very reason I use a different browser from IE is that I require a better level of security!

Not at all.  But some browsers for instance have an option to not render images that are cross-domain.  Have you got such an option switched on?

Also, some firewalls have options to limit cross-site image links.

I have security on for the internet zone, and I have no problems viewing the avatars in any of my browsers.

IE 7.0 is claimed to be a lot more standards-compliant- we'll see.  

But ChickPea how can we have any confidence at all in the advice of the man who told us that he was doing his customers a favour by letting them call him at "local rate" on his 0845 number!

Personally I would have far more confidence in the advice of a reliable long term forum member like Dorf on such a complex technical matter.

I see you've upset someone else NGM !!

Chickpea just did a runner;  Bye Bye !! ::)

wrote on Jul 7^th, 2005 at 12:14am:

I see you've upset someone else NGM !!

It takes one to know one DaveM! ;)  :P

At least I think that you are the Dave who spends most of his time trying to upset the forum's valuable members when they express opinions with which you do not personally agree?  Or is that Dave.  I do find it so confusing that you both have the same first name.

As for ChickPea I suspect he has a much thicker skin than you reckon so that we will not have seen the last of him!  ;) ;D :o

Hi Chickpea, I have a firewall, but I can view the Avatars if I use IE. However if I use any other browser I cannot view any Avatars externally held.

And thanks for your kind support for my contributions NGM. You seem to be pretty knowledgeable yourself too.

Dorf,

If you consider the current content of Chickpea's Avatar there are moments when I am inclined to wish that IE6 was as equally uncooperative as the other web browsers in its display! ;) :D

Personally I find those little forum cartoon based avatars much easier to live with than someone's personal mugshot at quite such close range. :o

The only improvement needed to the saynoto0870 forum based cartoon avatars is that once assigned to a particular member they should no longer be available for other members to use.

But then I believe that Daniel has been promising to improve the forum software here for seemingly forever and a day.  The email I received to tell me there is a new post in this 5 page thread still takes me to Page 1 and then requires me to manually move to Page 5.  In other forums I belong to the link in the email would take me straight to Page 5. :-[

Also the phone number I added a few weeks ago for a major uk company with many callers is still languishing in the unverified list where I suspect it will probably still be in two months time.  The waiting list for number verification is currently much, much longer than the 3 weeks claimed by the two Daves...........................

wrote on Jul 7^th, 2005 at 12:26am:

As for ChickPea I suspect he has a much thicker skin than you reckon so that we will not have seen the last of him!  ;) ;D :o

I suspect the opposite (he has de-registered by the look of it - only his email address remains).

Well NGM, perhaps there may be some advantage in not being able to see externally held Avatars then?

wrote on Jul 7^th, 2005 at 5:45pm:

Well NGM, perhaps there may be some advantage in not being able to see externally held Avatars then?

Unfortunately it was actually ChickPea's Avatar that made me feel especially unsympathetic towards him.

If I didn't know better I could have sworn he must have owned shares in the makers of either McLeans or Colgate Toothpaste. ;)

Perhaps the "Cheap Call Providers" section should be renamed to cover all call providers. That way we can move chat about BT's latest price increases to that section, aswell as making Orange's charging of freephone numbers more "at home".

~~~
How can we improve Saynoto0870? Part 2 is here