Website at last, another question and a warning - shameless advertising included!

[Gordon Henderson]

email address.. I think it works reasonably well:

var fullName = "Gordon Henderson" var user = "gordon" var domain = "drogon.net" var address = user + "@" + domain var linkStart = "" var linkEnd = "" var linkName = linkStart + fullName + linkEnd var linkAddress = linkStart + address + linkEnd document.write(linkName + " " + "")

You can see it in action on (eg)

's still clickable, but all a web spider/robot is going to see is that text above. (Although it's possible a really clever one could interpret it)

It's been years since I've looked - It's always far better to use the actual web stats - if you can get hold of them, and there are plenty of free bits of software to analyse them.

Gordon

[Holly, in France]

Hi all, Well the gite still isn't quite finished but the first draft of the website is. A picture of the staircase, (which is similar to but IMO better than the one Ben Huggins was working on today), and showing staining on the joists which I have been waffling on about is at:

anyone wants to go there directly, otherwise the link is in my sig.

I hope to do a page with some details about the renovation work, will post that too when it is done in case people are interested.

Comments on the site welcome, it's very DIY and a bit basic, for those with old computers like this one, but I think it will do the job.

One question though - I am using the tiscali hit counter at the bottom of the main page. I have been reading a bit on the web about hit counters, spiders finding email addresses, and hiding the email address by using java or a third party server. A valid email address is visible in a link in the HTML like this

[e-mail]&cid=1&istrip=T&dd=classicnoir&md

Since that is visible to anyone who cares to look, would it also be visible to the spiders? If so, please can anyone recommend a good, free, completely anonymous counter out of the hundreds available? TIA.

-- Holly, in France. Holiday home in the Dordogne, website:

[e-mail]

[Lurch]

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 19:12:28 -0000, "Holly, in France" strung together this:

I think newsgroups are the main source of spam. I published my email address (reluctantly) on a couple of websites I made and haven't had anything after a couple of months. I might stick the Java script above in one day though. Can't do any harm to hide it, as long as people have Java support in their browser.

[Holly, in France]

using something similar, and leave the address with the 'removethis' aswell for those not using/enabling javascript. It won't help with the problem of the live address which is required for the hit counter though.....

Haven't been able to find out about that so far, it's on the to do list. Anyone know whether and where it is possible on the uk tiscali site? It is more difficult finding my way about in French, the sites might be similar and it would be helpful if I had a clue where to look!

-- Holly, in France. Holiday home in the Dordogne, website:

[e-mail]

[Lobster]

How about

- it doesn't have a counter on the page though, if that's what you specifically need; but you log into "My Nedstat" which gives a list of stats (mainly hits, if you use the freebie version) for the webpage concerned.

(By the way, as a PS can I extol the virtues of

- the lengthy links you posted in your previous message were broken by line breaks on my screen, and needed to be "reassembled" to make sense!)

David

[Holly, in France]

Thanks, I will have a look.

No, not necessarily, just want to know the stats, roughly.

Ah yes, I see what you mean. It wasn't supposed to be a link at all, just a quote from the HTML to show how the valid email address appeared within it. I guess the fact that the quote began with http:/ etc fooled our browsers into thinking that it was a link. Hope no one tried to follow it, don't know what they would have come up with :-)

Holly Holiday home in the Dordogne, website:

[e-mail]

[jacob]

I wouldn't worry about website being basic - the simpler the better in my view. It's easy to read, quick to download and perfectly OK. Every time I try to go more designery with my own site I find that the content suffers - I just don't have time for both.

I was amused by your suggestion that stone walls are cool in summer and warm in winter. It's a popular rural myth. I've lived in several stone buildings and believe me they are cool in summer and even cooler in winter. Effin freezin in fact unless you want an enormous fuel bill. Stone is highly heat conductive - about one sixtieth of the insulation value of polystyrene insulation . Granite even worse. If you plan to live there in winter you'll need masses of insulation, or very thick underwear

cheers

Jacob

[Roger]

The message from [e-mail] contains these words:

I don't find it a problem living through the winter, or not at least till overnights get well below freezing and the temperature stays below all day. In the summer it takes a long hot spell for the house to get uncomfortably hot.

I wonder how Dave Liquorice gets on. ISTR he lives at some height in the middle of nowhere while I am at only 535 feet above MSL.

[Holly, in France]

Good, thanks for looking and for your reply.

insulation

Well, I have to beg to differ here. This is our fourth winter here and we truly have found that once the house is warmed up it holds the heat very well indeed. Underfloors and attics are well insulated it's true, and windows are double glazed, but the stone is exposed on the inside and outside of the walls and it seems easy enough to keep warm. This is with temperatures which commonly reach -10deg C, have been know to go below -15 and it has been known for the temp to remain below freezing day and night for a week. Didn't you see the pic of my daughter skating on the webpage? :-) Heating is by means of a woodburner and a wood fire with back boiler, both running three upstairs radiators by gravity. We have our own wood so don't have to worry about the cost of it so I don't know how much it would cost to heat by other methods.

Our previous house was stone too, although with better insulation in the walls, and that was fine too, with not over-expensive oil bills. Previous houses were 1970s block built bungalow which was seriously hard to heat, and a 1940s brick ex-council house which was somewhere in between.

Another point about the stone walls. In summer our front wall is exposed to the sun all day long. Walking beside it at night is literally like standing beside a radiator.

-- Holly, in France. Holiday home in the Dordogne, website:

[e-mail]

>

[Holly, in France]

Well, I have now done so, at length! Looks good, it was a good idea, thanks, but I had endless attempts at trying to register, filling in the forms etc but couldn't get the 'next' button to work. Tried shutting down webwasher, the firewall, putting it in IE trusted sites and allowing everything but still came to a . Will try again another time. -- Holly, in France. Holiday home in the Dordogne, website:

[Lobster]

Oh dear! I don't recall any such issues when I registered a few months back - maybe the site was just having an off day?

David

[The Natural Philosopher]

Stone may be 60 times as conductive as polystyrene,but that's why the old castles had 60 times thicker walls :D

I looked it up - a 3 foot thick stone wall is a better insulator than a triple glazed window. How about that?

Granite is three times colder than brick, so a 9" solid brick wall is equivalent to a 27" granite one.

Granite is 100 times worse than celotex, so a meter of granite is as good as 10mm of celotex.

To get a component U value of about 0.45 or so (basic sort of standard) requires 6 meters of granite. :-)

Or 2 meters of solid brick!!!

Sandstone is a bit warmer I think.

Note that plastering the inside is quite a difference. Plaster is 5 times better than granite, so an inch of plaster is as good as 5" of granite :-)

[jacob]

Haven't checked in my little book but that all sounds about right. Very interesting really - it means that the much derided polystryrene backed wall paper with about 3mm of insulation will actually double the u value of a 9" brick wall. etc etc

"Architect's Pocket Book" Charlotte Baden-Powell. (some relation? cold baths etc?)

cheers

Jacob

[Owain]

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote | I looked it up - a 3 foot thick stone wall is a better insulator than | a triple glazed window. How about that? ... | Note that plastering the inside is quite a difference. Plaster is 5 | times better than granite, so an inch of plaster is as good as 5" of | granite :-)

Wood panelling inside if you could afford it would also make a big difference I would think.

Owain

[Holly, in France]

Yup, must have been, have managed to register today. Now awaiting their email to see what to do.what happens next....

Holly