New Flippa red warning - inconsistent traffic data

[Clinton]

jigsaw, exactly. You'd have a holding page that's made up of some fixed content and some content from an SSI. On my site the left column, right column and even the nav bar are SSIs. So despite the fact that my pages are static pages I can easily effect a sitewide change of header/footer/navbar/column just by changing the relevant SSI. (That's what I did recently when I added a link to these forums in the nav bar. It took me less than a minute)

If someone else is calling an SSI page from your site (like "hotlinking" an image) it would show up in AWstats as a page view because it is, after all, a htm page. But as it's your holding page that has the Analytics code, GA doesn't know your SSI was called and wouldn't record that as a unique.

[hooperman]

Ah, I see! Every day's a school day.

Thanks.

Normal programming has been resumed.

[daveslutzkin]

If you can code the warnings, you can code the prevention of entering those details. Why let users enter erroneous data in the first place? Validation for crap data should take place at point of entry, not after the event.

As the following discussion in this thread has shown, there can be valid reasons for these things to occur, and I can't guarantee that we'll always know what these are. So we don't intend to be prescriptive, merely to add flags which help improve everyone's level of education. Removing the option for it to occur at all is (as I've said elsewhere) too far on the regulation side for mine.

[ClaytonL]

I, for one, love the warnings. Thanks Dave and Flippa.

[hooperman]

As the following discussion in this thread has shown, there can be valid reasons for these things to occur, and I can't guarantee that we'll always know what these are.

Yes, I agree (apart from profit > revenue)

Are the warnings shown at point of data entry, too? Many discrepencies are due to "mistypes" so providing a warning as data is being entered should reduce those discrepencies.

[Michelle]

And the fourth is a warning when a domain was established less than 60 days ago.

The aim here is to help out new participants, and point out stupid sellers.

Singling this out as a warning simply because the domain needs to be pushed to a free account as opposed to a register of choice?

Doesn't make one bit of sense to me and is likely to confuse and put unnecessary fear in newbie buyers.

[daveslutzkin]

Singling this out as a warning simply because the domain needs to be pushed to a free account as opposed to a register of choice?

Doesn't make one bit of sense to me and is likely to confuse and put unnecessary fear in newbie buyers.

It's something which new participants need to better understand, given the amount of support queries we receive on this front. I hope that we've spelled it out well enough, but please let me know if you have any poor experiences with this warning.