Enraged Webmasters Demand SideWiki Blocker! As Seen On Warrior Forum.

[Roma]

Why, on Why do I come over to this forum?

There are just tooooo many tempting goodies - this is yet another one.

Unfortunately, a must have tool, so I just have to spend!

Well done Catalin

Just going to purchase now!

[ripsnorta2]

Originally Posted by Catalin Ionescu

It doesn't require any type of coding language on the server. It is strictly JavaScript and will work on all your sites.

A plugin for Wordpress to simplify the installation, as well as a ton of new features have been added in the latest version, including the ability to display (or not) a message of your choice - or use the predefined message - in a SideWiki like bar on the left or your screen to all Toolbar users.

All warriors that have bought it will soon receive a notification on the customer mailing list with instructions how to download their update.

Catalin,

as it used JavaScript, what happens if a user disables JS or uses something like Adblocker?

Cheers

[Catalin Ionescu]

John,

I believe I have already answered this question in an earlier post.

Google's SideWiki requires JavaScript to function. If the user has JS disabled, they won't be able to post comments in the first place using Google's toolbar.

I'm not familiar with AdBlocker, but as far as I know it shouldn't prevent SideWiki Blocker from doing it's magic, since it doesn't display any ads (unless you use the advanced functionality, which is optional) nor pop-ups.

Hope this helps.

Sincerely,
Catalin Ionescu

[abundantliving]

Hi Catalin,

I already purchased your sidewiki blocker, but noticed that yesterday another warrior posted a WSO for a different sidewiki blocker. I was wondering if you could clarify how YOUR software is different from theirs... and please be specific. Here's their thread:

Block SideWiki Only True Solutions On The Market Earn Cash + Prizes + Bonus Downloads + 50% Discount

Thanks!

[Catalin Ionescu]

Hi Holly,

I wasn't aware of this product, so I just checked it out for you.

Now, before I start I'd like to point out a few things...

First of all, I have the utmost respect for anyone that creates a quality product and work all the steps to bring it to market.

With this being said I will limit my comparison to hard facts about the products I was able to determine in my analysis, without saying anything about the actual persons behind the product.

Note that I do not own nor have purchased the other product. My analysis was made on the script installed on their site, assuming the script that is sold is the same one.

1. The sales price. My current WSO price is about $6 lower.

2. Both solutions use JavaScript to prevent comments from being seen. Even though their product packages the JavaScript inside a PHP file, it is actual JavaScript that is sent to the surfer browser.

3. There is a claim in the sales copy both in the WSO as well as on their site that their product is the only one that truly blocks comments by not allowing link sharing.

This is untrue, as my product does that since version 2.0 (currently version 2.3 is sold in this WSO as well as on my site).

I have privately asked James to reword his copy and remove these untrue and misleading claims.

4. Their solution requires both PHP and a MySQL database on the server to function. Thus it cannot be installed on hosts that do not have them.

Mine works with any kind of website or server, without requiring any particular environment.

5. Instead of a truly random unique string generated by my product, theirs use words pulled from a database. While the links produced by his program may look a bit prettier, this makes no difference whatsoever in how both products actually works.

The SideWiki toolbar can't and won't make any difference between my truly random unique strings and dictionary words, and will be equally fooled not to display any comments.

6. Their solution sends an extra request to your server, thus increasing both server load and surfer load.

My solution does not add any additional requests, nor load to your server in any way.

7. My solution comes in two different versions: a WordPress plugin that works for all WordPress versions from 2.5 to 2.8, and another solution that works for all other sites.

8. My solution provides an integrated install checker and visual code editor that not only tells the webmaster he has correctly installed the blocker on their site, but also provides copy & paste code for them to add to the HTML pages.

9. My solution provides the option - in both the WordPress plugin as well as in the standalone version - to display a SideWiki like message to all SideWiki Toolbar users with a text you specify.

10. My solution comes with an extensive User Manual, that details installation instructions for regular as well as advanced webmasters. Specific instructions are provided for every type of site, from WordPress blogs, to dynamic sites, to static HTML sites.

Includes a section specific for Site Built It owners, as their environment requires a different setup.

Hope this answers your questions.

Sincerely,
Catalin Ionescu

[abundantliving]

Thank you Catalin. Yes, your answers were quite thorough and truly helped me understand the difference between the two programs.

Just as a note to others that are looking at both WSO's...

I have purchased from Catalin before, and his products have always worked as promised. And, his support is great.
:-)

[Catalin Ionescu]

Breaking news!

Many of you have expressed a very valid concern:

Will installing this SideWiki Blocker affect my SEO position in Google? Will Google, out of retaliation, decide to delist my site if I install this blocker?

Well, as of a few minutes ago I can give you official information from Google...

... installing my SideWiki Blocker will not, in any way whatsoever attract retaliation from Google.

Here's a quote from the official notification I just received from Bryan from Google:

Quote:
"To avoid further confusion, I'd like to clarify the following point:
Google Search and Sidewiki are separate. Sidewiki doesn't affect ranking and Google hasn't made any Sidewiki-related changes to its indexing. If anyone experiences diminished SEO as a result of any third-party tools, it's not related to us. It's up to you to make sure any tools you implement on your site do not adversely affect indexing on Google.com."

Sincerely,
Catalin Ionescu

[Jill Carpenter]

I just need to let you all know - I just saw a video where someone was claiming that Catalins blocker was not working - and it is FALSE!

The site they were testing on was right here on the Warrior Forum. I have not seen ANY comments on ANY page on this site.

You are getting a great deal here folks!

Now, I'm all for a little friendly competition - but are my videos really only one star?

Catalin,

Thank you for adding this additional information which non technical people like me can use to help others understand the better efficiency of your product.

[tvanslooten]

Catalin:

Thanks for the explanation of Google's stance regarding your tool and rankings. However, from a SEO perspective (and a total non-technical person, mind you) I'm concerned about the random string that is appended to each page of my site. Do the search engines see this random string as well? I've always been told that random stuff like this in your url isn't good for SEO purposes. Plus, I have many pages already ranked for the specific url (i.e. http://mydomain.com/keywordphrase/) so now after installing your script the url looks like this: http://mydomain.com/keywordphrase/#7588fh84

Doesn't this tell the search engines the url has changed? Again, I'm not a technical person so forgive me if this is a total stupid question but it has me concerned about using this tool.

And something else just came to mind...what about social bookmarking? If someone bookmarks my page, won't they be bookmarking a page with a random string attached to it?

Maybe a technical explanation of how this string works will help ease my concerns...

Thanks,

Travis

[Catalin Ionescu]

Hi Travis,

I believe I've already touched on the topic, but it probably got buried in the other comments.

Here's the short version...

Search engines don't interpret anything after the #. When they see a url that contains a # in it, they take into account only the part before the #.

So in the eyes of a search engine, http://mydomain.com/keywordphrase/ and http://mydomain.com/keywordphrase/#7588fh84 are actually the same url.

Regarding the social bookmarking, in theory yes they would bookmark the page with the # appended. But this isn't a problem as any human following that link would end up at the right page, and if any search engine happens to come across the link it would disregard everything after the # and again, end up with the correct url.

Hope this helps.

Sincerely,
Catalin Ionescu

[howdo-i]

Hi Catalin,

I have some questions for you if you don't mind.

1. Can you explain to me how you achieve this without making an additional request to the server? It is my understanding that SideWiki will display comments based upon the page url in the browser. Are you able to fool Sidewiki in some way to eliminate the redirect?

2. It isn't used very often but the hash in a url can be used for on page anchor links. Does the blocker interfere with this function in any way?

Steve

[Catalin Ionescu]

Hi Steve,

Very good questions...

1. Yes, SideWiki Blocker is able to fool SideWiki without needing an additional request from the server. Everything happens in the user browser.

2. No, it doesn't interfere in any way. SideWiki Blocker has built in logic and is smart enough to recognize an on page anchor link. When this is detected, it allows the anchor link to function as usual. However, fake anchor links are also detected and they are overwritten.

Hope this answers your questions.

Sincerely,
Catalin Ionescu

[howdo-i]

Hi Catalin,

Good answers...

I'm sold and will be ordering later today when I've cleared my desk.

I'm choosing this blocker over the others I've seen because it does not require a mysql database, it has a feature to leave sidewiki-like messages of your own, there is no redirect involved and the blocker engine can be installed in one place and used from multiple domains. (Please correct me if I'm wrong).

The one drawback to this approach as I see it is the fact that it is Sidewiki version specific. Unlike other versions that simply redirect you to a never-been-seen-before page and are therefore Sidewiki independant.

This does mean that a blocker update will be required potentialy every time a new Sidewiki version is released.

Steve

[Catalin Ionescu]

Steve,

Originally Posted by howdo-i

the blocker engine can be installed in one place and used from multiple domains. (Please correct me if I'm wrong).

This is correct.

Originally Posted by howdo-i

This does mean that a blocker update will be required potentialy every time a new Sidewiki version is released.

There is no straight-forward answer that is also accurate to this question. Here's why...

The blocker detection is toolbar specific, not SideWiki specific. What this means is, if Google is making some SideWiki changes without issuing a toolbar update, then you might not need to update the blocker.

There was a lot of thought behind this decision...

The primary reason why I chose to detect the version of the toolbar was to preserve existing site functionality for your visitors that do have an older toolbar installed, but not with SideWiki functionality in it. For these visitors, there will be no visible trace whatsoever that you have the blocker installed.

In short, your visitor comfort primed over the potential need for you as a site owner to do a minor effort once every half a year or so to update the product.

Sincerely,
Catalin Ionescu

[howdo-i]

Originally Posted by Catalin Ionescu

Steve,

The blocker detection is toolbar specific, not SideWiki specific. What this means is, if Google is making some SideWiki changes without issuing a toolbar update, then you might not need to update the blocker.

Ok understood.

Originally Posted by Catalin Ionescu

Steve,

In short, your visitor comfort primed over the potential need for you as a site owner to do a minor effort once every half a year or so to update the product.

I'm not so much worried about my ability to keep up with the updates as I am about your capability to provide updates. I mean no offense by this, simply that I know how hard it is to provide ongoing software maintenance. This doesn't put me off the product however.

I'm also hearing rumours about similar toolbars possibly being developed by other organizations like facebook etc. Do you have a plan for this possibility?

Steve

[Catalin Ionescu]

Regarding the ability to provide updates when needed, as my customers can attest, I try my best to provide a reasonable level of support and aim to support my products for at least one year after the initial launch.

This is not my first software I've launched in the past years, and hopefully won't be the last either :-)

I'd like to raise another point that I believe to be more important than this... If Google will make changes to how SideWiki works, all producers with similar products will have to adapt theirs to these changes in order to keep them effective.

So everyone will have to come up with an update...

Originally Posted by howdo-i

I'm also hearing rumours about similar toolbars possibly being developed by other organizations like facebook etc. Do you have a plan for this possibility?

I've also heard these rumors, and do keep an open ear about other toolbars. However, as I've pointed out in other occasions, there's a big difference between big G's toolbar and the others...

... and that is market reach.

There's nothing that's stopping me from a technical point of view to create a similar toolbar right now. Should you or others be concerned about it? Probably not, because I lack the muscle to push this on millions of computers worldwide.

Bottom line, this is not about the existence of the toolbar but about the potential it has to harm or benefit your business. Currently Google has a market share large enough that the likehood a visitor with it installed ends up on your sites is rather big.

If you have a site that markets to Facebook users, and they come up with a similar toolbar, then you'd probably be rightfully concerned about it.

If there will be demand, and there is a technically feasible solution, there will be a product that caters to that demand :-)

Sincerely,
Catalin Ionescu

[howdo-i]

I have just purchased. Thanks Catalin.

Steve

[howdo-i]

Hi Catalin,

I want to install the js file on one domain and have all my domains access it as described in the manual but I'm wondering how significant is the drawback that you point out. The drawback being the warning that a browser will give if the user has set security to high.

It would appear that Google adsense and many other ad delivery systems would throw this error too so the risk can't be that high.

Can you give us any advice on this please?

Steve

[Catalin Ionescu]

Hi Steve,

That is a very good question.

The risk is depends on the type of visitors your sites have.

It's Internet Explorer visitors that could see a warning message if their default security setting is set to High. The default setting - and most users leave it as default - does not trigger any warnings.

Sincerely,
Catalin Ionescu

[howdo-i]

Hi Catalin,

Does this mean that any user of IE that has set high security would receive a warning on any site that carries adsense which would be a lot of web sites? If this is the case I'm not going to lose much sleep over it lol.

Steve

[Catalin Ionescu]

Steve,

IE users that have set high security receive a lot of warnings on a lot of sites and/or have a lot of functionality not enabled by default -- ActiveX, JavaScript, java applets, cookies -- to name a few.

Basically with high security you view the sites as they would only have HTML tags and images. Note it is possible to customize the high security to allow one or more exceptions.

On a final note, perhaps I should add that I use Firefox primarily, and only check sites in IE from time to time - mostly when doing layouts to see they display properly, or when testing web applications - so my experience with IE isn't that great.

Sincerely,
Catalin Ionescu

[howdo-i]

Originally Posted by Catalin Ionescu

Steve,

On a final note, perhaps I should add that I use Firefox primarily, and only check sites in IE from time to time - mostly when doing layouts to see they display properly, or when testing web applications - so my experience with IE isn't that great.

Sincerely,
Catalin Ionescu

That's exactly what I do which is why I wasn't too sure about how it worked lol.

Ok I've decided that the benefits of centralising the js file in one place outweights the security drawbacks.

Thanks
Steve