On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 15:26:49 UTC, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
nightjar nightjar@insert my surname here.uk.com wrote:
From a commercial point of view, I would be more worried about the
fact that his site looks more professional.

As ever a matter of taste. But it doesn't load properly here.

Then there's the spelling mistake in the title...

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
Avenue Supplies, http://avenuesupplies.co.uk

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
nightjar nightjar@ wrote:

It wouldn't bring you any more business, which is surely the point. Meta
tags are so little used these days that I don't even bother to set them
up on new pages.

I have found it is still worth setting the "description" tag since lots of
engines will display the content of that on search results.

Indeed. Both Description and Title are well worth while taking some trouble
over. Microsoft recommend a maximum of 250 characters for description and
50-80 for title, which seems to be about right.

Colin Bignell

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
news ....
What? A marketing ploy based on incorrect spelling? Are you having a
laugh?

It is a well-known ploy. There will always be someone who cannot resist
telling you about it and getting potential customers to contact you is half
way to selling them your services.

....
It was designed with Frontpage.

That's the one I meant.

Like many 'web snobs' you assume that the public gives a toss or even
knows.

The main reason that it is disliked is that it wrote bad HTML. I haven't
used it for years, so I don't know if that has been fixed. However, the
point I was making had nothing to do with that; The standard templates
simply look old fashioned compared to what is available on the web today.
Irrespective of the web authoring programme you use, I think your site would
benefit from a more modern look, which you could simply do by applying some
custom graphics to your existing site.

I get lots of compliments about how friendly & easy to use the site is.

That is important, but is independent of the web editor. In general, viewers
should be able to reach what they want to find in a maximum of three clicks
or 8 seconds. With a small site like yours, that is quite easy to do.

You don't seem to take criticism well, even if it is constructive.
Nevertheless, I will offer you this advice:

You have only registered the domain name medwayhandyman.co.uk. As a minimum,
you should also register medway-handyman.co.uk, but I would snap up the two
..me.uk and probably the two .com variants as well. If you don't have those
domain names, anyone, including your competitor, could register them and
automatically point any hits on those sites to his own.

Having registered a few extra domain names, populate as many as you can with
web sites. A Google search on medway handyman only comes up with three
different companies. If you have a number of sites, you will get more hits
and, if you take a bit of trouble to optimise the sites for search engines
(Google do a good guide, as do Microsoft, although they still think meta
tags are useful), you may also push your competition down the page a bit.
The top three places bring in most business and, if you populate all those,
you will be laughing. This will involve a bit of work - the robots can spot
cloned sites, so they all need to be different and you need to do things
like register with Google and use their webmaster tools - but it should be
worth it if the web is a serious source of business for you.

Colin Bignell

wrote in message
ups.com...

nightjar wrote:

However, as meta tags are virtually worthless

Meta tags aren't "virtually worthless", they're of small worth.

I stick by virtually worthless.

Colin Bignell

On 2006-11-22 08:34:17 +0000, Guy King said:

The message
from Andy Hall contains these words:

Passing off is certainly defensible.

Don't you mean indefensible?

Sorry, to be clear, I meant that it is a position that can be defended
by the wronged party.

In the context of the wronging party, I agree with you.

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 10:22:25 GMT, . wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 23:25:50 GMT, . wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 23:04:26 +0000, Grunff wrote:

Why does it offend you so much
in the context of the building trade?

It doesn't, but the group title is d-i-y not d-i-f-s-e-a-g-p-f-i. If he
wants a self help group for building professionals then unnm is - thataway
and he can get a vote for the group creation.

correct time of night, agressive and abusive seems to be an accurate
description of demeanour towards other posters ...

Except it's not, in fact to describe that post as either abusive or
aggressive is a lie.

again, forwards, only this time in english, please.

The post you referred to was not abusive. Hence you lied.

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 10:35:02 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
Don't be a pillock, Steve. By quoting only one person in your post
you're referring to that person by default. If you meant the post to
be general, no quote was necessary.

What a silly comment, my comment makes it clear who an I referring to and
guess what, it wasn't "Dave" nor was it his alias "The Medway Handyman"
before you leap to another incorrect conclusion.

Err, it *didn't* make it clear at all. Otherwise there would have been no
adverse reaction to it.

You've been around long enough to know that if you selectively quote then
add a comment everyone will believe it's that quote your commenting on. So
stop wriggling.

The only ones wriggling are you and the other sycophants. I clearly did not
refer to the Medway Handyman. You have deliberately put an interpretation
on my post that is not there.

On 22 Nov 2006 05:41:40 -0800, Andy Dingley wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:

So where ought it to matter then, if this isn't it?

It would matter a great deal more if he had made an attempt in the
displayable HTML code to pass himself off as The Medway Handyman.

There is a need to prove the case, not to prove it very much indeed.

I cannot make sense of the above. One proves it or one does not, there are
no degrees of proof beyond (in this sort of case) "on the balance of
probability."

;
There's a need to prove that the passing off is to prospective customers or
to ultimate consumers. The use of the search term in a form that is not
displayed to prospective customers or ultimate consumers may weaken that
test, especially if as has happened the use of the term does not put the
offending website into prominence.

It does make the offending site prominent though (especially the use od
AdWords), even if not the only prominent site. No one is claiming that
it will absorb _all_ traffic, it merely needs to divert a fraction to
be a passing off.

But here you put an interpretation on Adwords that I consider to be
unsupportable. It is perfectly reasonable for many individuals to use the
keywords "medway" and "handyman" with Adwords. And Dave cannot prevent them
from doing so. No more than Microsoft can stop anyone talking about windows
in general of even about windows in the context of GUIs. Nor can M$ prevent
anyone from using windows as a search term with Adwords.

As you thankfully point out, I'm not a lawyer. I'm not up to date on
legal precedents and whether any such case has already been decided.

Sorry missed this until now, so we can both agree that it's more in the
balance than you indicated in your first reply?

No, not at all. The issue of whether search engines are recognised by
UK case law as representing "goodwill" is an interesting one, but my
doubt is to whether this has already been settled or not, not how it
will eventually be settled. To claim that they aren't would be a
travesty.

To claim that the use of geographic description and a generic description
of an odd job man is passing off is pushing the limits of credibility.
There are other features of the site that give cause for concern, but IMO
they are the copyright infringement that you discounted.

But if the person decides not to throw up his hands and say
"it's a fair cop" than Dave may well have to dig into his pocket and get
expert opinion and may be looking at expensive litigation.

Indeed -- which is why it's useful to approach them first in a low-cost
manner, as this can be done (carefully) in a manner that's not
prejudicial to any final court outcome, where it unfortunately to go
that far.


Daves claim on the name is, I suspect, weaker than he thinks.

I don't believe he has any defensible claim on the name whatsoever
(and he might like to think about making some for the future). However
this isn't necessary for the action we're talking about here.

And FWIW, I don't think the action you refer to has legs. It's a handy bit
of jargonese to beat someone with. But if he calls the bluff then I think
it will collapse or at least lead to a very expensive place.

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 14:33:16 GMT, Lobster wrote:

Well yesterday the site had the words "MEDWAY HANDYMAN" displayed in
large yellow letters at the top of the home page.

Not here it didn't. And even if it did, there's nothing to stop them using
those words.

Dave has not registered "Medway Handyman" or even "The Medway handyman" as
a trademark. Nor could he trademark any and all use of these terms. He
would have to trademark a specific usage and to register each separate area
of use.

Steve Firth wrote:
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 10:22:25 GMT, . wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 23:25:50 GMT, . wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 23:04:26 +0000, Grunff wrote:

Why does it offend you so much
in the context of the building trade?

It doesn't, but the group title is d-i-y not d-i-f-s-e-a-g-p-f-i. If he
wants a self help group for building professionals then unnm is - thataway
and he can get a vote for the group creation.

correct time of night, agressive and abusive seems to be an accurate
description of demeanour towards other posters ...

Except it's not, in fact to describe that post as either abusive or
aggressive is a lie.

again, forwards, only this time in english, please.

The post you referred to was not abusive. Hence you lied.

call the cops.

Steve Firth wrote:
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 10:35:02 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
Don't be a pillock, Steve. By quoting only one person in your post
you're referring to that person by default. If you meant the post to
be general, no quote was necessary.

What a silly comment, my comment makes it clear who an I referring to and
guess what, it wasn't "Dave" nor was it his alias "The Medway Handyman"
before you leap to another incorrect conclusion.

Err, it *didn't* make it clear at all. Otherwise there would have been no
adverse reaction to it.

You've been around long enough to know that if you selectively quote then
add a comment everyone will believe it's that quote your commenting on. So
stop wriggling.

The only ones wriggling are you and the other sycophants. I clearly did not
refer to the Medway Handyman. You have deliberately put an interpretation
on my post that is not there.

I think you're a liar.

In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
You've been around long enough to know that if you selectively quote
then add a comment everyone will believe it's that quote your
commenting on. So stop wriggling.

The only ones wriggling are you and the other sycophants. I clearly did
not refer to the Medway Handyman. You have deliberately put an
interpretation on my post that is not there.

Tell that to the judge.

--
*Save the whale - I'll have it for my supper*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 23:43:57 GMT, . wrote:

call the cops.

What, to deal with an insect?

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 23:43:57 GMT, "."
wrote:


again, forwards, only this time in english, please.

The post you referred to was not abusive. Hence you lied.

call the cops.

I did.

They didn't come.

Nothing new there then.

DG

Steve Firth wrote:
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 23:43:57 GMT, . wrote:

call the cops.

What, to deal with an insect?

I still think you're a liar.

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 23:54:06 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
You've been around long enough to know that if you selectively quote
then add a comment everyone will believe it's that quote your
commenting on. So stop wriggling.

The only ones wriggling are you and the other sycophants. I clearly did
not refer to the Medway Handyman. You have deliberately put an
interpretation on my post that is not there.

Tell that to the judge.

sigh I'm mildly amused by a bunch of people telling me that I'm stupid
because they fail to read what is written and instead read what they think
may be there, should be there or could be there.

I refer to only one person, it is clear that the person is not "Dave". No
matter how hard you try to make it so.

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 23:43:58 GMT, . wrote:

I think

See you were wrong there, and it didn't get any better from there on.

I know you're a coward.

On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 00:42:38 +0000, Derek Geldard wrote:

call the cops.

I did.

They didn't come.

Nothing new there then.

Here's your crime number: 0978654.

On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 00:51:39 GMT, . wrote:

I still think

No, you're wrong again. You do make a habit of it.

Stove Froth wrote:
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 23:43:58 GMT, . wrote:

I think

See you were wrong there, and it didn't get any better from there on.

I know you're a coward.

so, let me get this straight. you're a consultant with 2 homes, one in italy.
you drive a 4x4 and post usenet posts which are usually characterised by
ranting, name calling, right wing posturing and randomly attacking people
you have no knowledge about whatsoever ?

and all this seems to happen after pub kicking out time ? HIC !!

I still think you're a liar.

jusss a thought mind, HIC .. just a belief.

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 08:31:43 GMT, Guy King
wrote:

The message
from "The Medway Handyman" contains
these words:

Only the fact that you are a proven ****wit really.

Just shove him in the KF with Drivel.

Funny you should say that because I also just kill filed both after
their long tit for tat exchange of complete drivel

So that is Bacon, Dawson, Firth and Dribble in the trash can - sounds
like the lineup at Trumpton This place feels much more civilised
without them!


--

On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 01:28:58 GMT, . wrote:

so, let me get this straight. you're a consultant with 2 homes, one in italy.
you drive a 4x4 and post usenet posts which are usually characterised by
ranting, name calling, right wing posturing and randomly attacking people
you have no knowledge about whatsoever ?

and all this seems to happen after pub kicking out time ? HIC !!

I still think you're a liar.

You still show no evidence of thought.

jusss a thought mind, HIC .. just a belief.

Just libel, without a basis in fact.

On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 01:09:21 +0000, Steve Firth
wrote:

On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 00:42:38 +0000, Derek Geldard wrote:

call the cops.

I did.

They didn't come.

Nothing new there then.

Here's your crime number: 0978654.

TNX

BTW it was Nov 5th. It is now nov 24the and Churchill still have done
nothing, not visited the car, not dealt with *us*. We have to wait for
them, or so they say.

Despite a prod on the 17 th.

Any suggestions? Not related to choosing insurers for next year.

We did that already.

I'd sooner be buggered that insure with Churchill. (TM)

DG

On 2006-11-24 01:32:03 +0000, Derek Geldard said:

On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 01:09:21 +0000, Steve Firth
wrote:

On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 00:42:38 +0000, Derek Geldard wrote:

call the cops.

I did.
They didn't come.

Nothing new there then.

Here's your crime number: 0978654.

TNX
BTW it was Nov 5th. It is now nov 24the and Churchill still have done
nothing, not visited the car, not dealt with *us*. We have to wait for
them, or so they say.

No you don't.



Despite a prod on the 17 th.

There is the problem. You are allowing way too long between contacts
with them and need also to be more assertive.




Any suggestions? Not related to choosing insurers for next year.

Yes. When you contact the claims department/ call centre/whatever,
immediately
escalate. Ask for the name of the agent's supervisor. Speak to them
and then insist
on speaking to their manager. By that time you may be speaking to a
sentient being
if you are lucky. Note all the names and ask for direct phone
numbers and when
they will be in the office.

Then explain the problem and ask what they are going to do and most
importantly by when.
Solicit a commitment, ask them to confirm that they are empowered to
deliver on it and agree the timescale for action. Tie it down. If it
is that an appointment is to be made for someone to visit, then get
that agreed, or failing that a commitment that the person will contact
you and the time (or you call them at the time). Keep it on a tight
rein. Don't allow the timescale for responses be days, make it a
maximum of one day. Put them under pressure. This has several
effects. It conveys a sense of urgency, a desire on the person's
part to get the matter resolved so that the PITA customer doesn't keep
calling, and it keeps it in their short term memory so that you don't
have to tell the whole story each time.

If you can't get time commitments from the person you are speaking to,
or they don't meet their commitment, ask to speak to their manager or
to the person responsible for actually delivering on the commitment.
You can also initiate a complaint through their internal procedure and
ultimately take it to the Insurance Ombudsman, but that won't be fast.
I would also note times and content of phone calls, and if this lasts
into next week, write a letter to their CEO listing the calls, the lack
of response and send it by Special Delivery so that they can't claim
not to have received it.

The key think is to keep up the pressure and with much more regular
calls. Certainly *never* accept responses like you will have to wait
for them or that there are thousands of other customers, etc. etc.
Those are not valid arguments. The customer should not have to wait.
Either they are lazy, or they are understaffed or they have a
procedure problem. All of these are within their ability to address
so they own the problem.

There's no need to be aggressive about any of this. You can be very
assertive by agreeing tight timescales with the person you are speaking
to, getting their agreement to them. Keeping the pressure at a level
that it is uncomfortable for them will encourage them to get the matter
resolved quickly so that they don't have to keep getting these regular
phone calls.

Too often people in these places are used to things running at their
pace and most customers sit back and let them do it. You can decide to
let them dictate the pace if you are more comfortable with that, but
then you can't really complain about their inactivity.

Try it. I think you may be surprised with the results.




We did that already.

KInd of coincidentally, I've been having dealings with the motor and
motor insurance industry this week. To begin with, I have to say
that I have no interest at all in cars in terms of their aesthetics,
mechanics, repairing them or anything else. They are a means of
transport and something to carry things in and nothing more as far as I
am concerned.

This week I have been dealing with the MOT, insurance and tax disc for
my wife's car. To me, this is all a big PITA to begin with because it
is time consuming and dealing largely with bureaucratic crap for no
valuable reason. The MOT is fair enough - I found a local place
that does them plus repairs and although the car failed on the first
test, the faults were not major and a new exhaust component and a
headlight adjustment resolved it. Two visits, hour and a half in total
and around £100 spent. Not unreasonable.

I then decided that I would like to renew the tax disc on line in order
to save the time taken to go to the town centre, park, go to the post
office and so on - an exercise that takes a minimum of an hour and a
half as well because of the queues in the post office and everybody
doing what have been made to be complex transactions for no good reason
other than paper pushing.

The basics on the renewal web site came up OK, but the process failed
at the insurance checking stage. I called DVLA and they said that
the Motor Insurers Database didn't have details of insurance that would
be valid on Dec 1st. (new date). The existing insurance expires on
the 26th but had been set up to automatically renew.

So I called the insurer and was told that it wasn't their policy to
enter the details into the database until they had taken payment on the
renewal date or within 14 days after that. Sorry, not acceptable.
After a couple of people I got through to a manager who committed to
getting the details entered manually on the next working day (last
Monday). Tried the renewal on Tuesday. Still didn't work, so I
called him back. Oh well, it should have done..... I explained to
him that I needed this to be done and wanted a call back to confirm in
the afternoon. To his credit, he did call, but then said that it was
all down to his IT department and "the computer". I explained that
I would allow a further 24hrs and if it wasn't all in place then I
would be initiating complaints and they would lose the business.

The application was still not working, so I called DVLA again who
confirmed that they could not get details on the new insurance from the
database, only the old one. I did try contacting the organisation
running the motor insurers database. Onanists par excellence it
seems. They wanted me to download a form, fill it in and send it to
them with a £10 cheque and then it would take 14 days. I don't want to
do any of those things. The data wouldn't be useful in 14 days.

In the meantime I found the first internet site that came up using
Google that goes and pokes the web sites of 50 insurers and gets
quotes. It was one set of form filling which wasn't too bad.
Previously I have visited the various on line insurers and tried a few.
The trouble is that it's at least ten minutes on each filling in the
rigmarole and I have neither the time nor enthusiasm to do it. Hence
the previous insurance has been self renewing for the last couple of
years.

The results of the exercise were surprising. I found that most of the
insurers were less expensive than the existing one and there were 4-5
who were close to half the price of the incumbent (who had been the
cheapest at the time). I found a policy underwritten by Axa (so no
Mickey Mouse) and completed the application on line in 5 minutes. The
policy terms are better than the existing as well. Added to this, the
certificate and all documents appeared as PDFs which I could download
and print myself. Done. No titting about with call centres,
cheques and all the rest of it.

I did talk to the incumbent insurer again because I will still be
initiating a complaint. Either somebody is lying or they are
incompetent or there is a broken process. They wanted the
certificate back in order to cancel the insurance. I asked them when
they proposed to come to collect it since I had wasted too much time
with them. A stamped envelope is coming my way. The direct debit
is cancelled, so they can't collect the money anyway. The
satisfaction came in speaking to the guy at the incumbent one last time
and explaining all of this. When I told him about the premium of the
new insurer, he went very quiet. Then he wanted to know who it was.
I asked why and he said that he needed to renew his insurance soon.

In the end, I did go to the post office, choosing a quiet time. I
decided to renew the tax disc for 6 months and then revert to 12
monthly intervals. While this costs a little more, it does mean that
there won't be about to expire insurance or MOT so the on line thing
should work. Plus it spreads the costs.


So I am afraid that I am not pleased with the motor industry and all to
do with it this week. There is a lot of scope for improvement.





I'd sooner be buggered that insure with Churchill. (TM)

It looks like you are being, and by a dog as well.... ;-)



DG

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

The existing insurance expires on the 26th but had been set up to
automatically renew.

Hence the previous insurance has been self renewing for the last couple of
years.

The results of the exercise were surprising.

Not surprising to me at all - renewals always come up more expensive for me.
(although I've remained with the same insurance company, I've changed
broker.)

TBH I'm surprised you're surprised, IYSWIM.

cheers,
clive

On 2006-11-24 13:24:35 +0000, "Clive George" said:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message ...

The existing insurance expires on the 26th but had been set up to
automatically renew.

Hence the previous insurance has been self renewing for the last couple
of years.

The results of the exercise were surprising.

Not surprising to me at all - renewals always come up more expensive
for me. (although I've remained with the same insurance company, I've
changed broker.)

TBH I'm surprised you're surprised, IYSWIM.

cheers,
clive

I wasn't surprised to find something less expensive, just at the extent
by which the replacement was less than the original.

On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 01:32:03 +0000, Derek Geldard wrote:

Any suggestions?

Make their life hell, call them every day or so.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Owain
saying something like:

The Medway Murderer wrote:
Full Day includes kneecapping, decapitation, burial and basket of fruit for
the widow (8 hours) pre booked; £160

At those prices it's cheaper than dying from natural causes and paying
the undertaker.

I should coco, have you seen what The Medway Carpenter charges for a
coffin?
--

Dave

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Lobster
saying something like:

Well yesterday the site had the words "MEDWAY HANDYMAN" displayed in
large yellow letters at the top of the home page.

This is still the meta line...

meta name="keywords" content="builder in medway, builder in maidstone,
handyman in kent, kent handyman, Medway handyman, the Medway handyman,
Maidstone handyman, handyman services, handyman in Medway,handyman in
Maidston, kent-handyman.co.uk, kent-handyman, The maidstone handyman,
handyman in Bromley, Bromley handyman, Kent handyman, Kent Handyman,
best handyman in Kent, best handyman in Medway, Kent household
maintenances and repairs , Medway property maintenances, kitchen
fitting in Medway, bathroom fitting in Medway, kitchen fitting in
Bromley, bathroom fitting in Bromley, kitchen fitting in Bexley,
bathroom fitting in Bexley, kitchen fitting in Maidstone, bathroom
fitting in Maidstone, quality tradesmen in Medway, good tradesmen in
Medway, quality tradesmen in Kent, best tradesmen in Medway, best
tradesmen in Kent, Home Improvements in Medway, Home Improvements in
Bromley, Home Improvements in Rochester, Home Improvements in
Maidstone,"

!--meta_end--

Imo, continuing to include the term 'the medway handyman' is taking the
****.
--

Dave

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Grimly Curmudgeon
saying something like:

Well yesterday the site had the words "MEDWAY HANDYMAN" displayed in
large yellow letters at the top of the home page.

Further to this... have a look at this.

http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache...3&lr=lang_ en

Google's cache from teh 19th November.
--

Dave

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 14:35:11 UTC, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote:

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Grimly Curmudgeon
saying something like:

Well yesterday the site had the words "MEDWAY HANDYMAN" displayed in
large yellow letters at the top of the home page.

Further to this... have a look at this.

http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache...3&lr=lang_ en

Google's cache from teh 19th November.

Now that's very naughty...and definitely 'grounds'....

(for those who haven't looked, it has 'Medway handyman' repeated in
various forms, in white on white text).
--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
Avenue Supplies, http://avenuesupplies.co.uk

The message
from "Bob Eager" contains these words:

Now that's very naughty...and definitely 'grounds'....

It's very tempting to ring him up and make a booking for him to come fix
something at a fictitious address - or perhaps at the local copshop.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.