Posts

Is your service branded up or can be done white label?

I never miss it, but it seems a bit boring this time aorund, not the usual arguments....well not yet. I guess still getting rid of the TV entertainment twirps before the real nitty gritty kicks in.

Who are you betting on winning?

I reckon the ex army guy whose name I can't recall, or maybe Liz.

He always ends up choosing the ones who are wholly professional in their demeanour, not the ones with large personalities or too set in their ways to change like the marketing guru. I wanted that twit last night to go, the numpty telecoms entrepreneur....how annoying is he?

hmmm, maybe! But i've done a few lately and they are also still waiting.

Now at No. 6 as I can see. Well done so far chaps!

Just a thought, as I can see how many links have been built, but what would you have charged for this amount of work ordinarily?

Have you seen how many Monster has?

[Invalid] Markup Validation of http://www.monster.co.uk/ - W3C Markup Validator

Hundreds of errors isn't the be all and end all if it was anything that really affected the team you hired or the rankings you achieved, maybe so. Clearly here it doesn't so that's proof that other factors will always far outweigh W3C.

It's mostly just a nicety to add on that you can chuck into the mix as a standard you achieve. But it doesn't win orders nor keep customers. And it doesn't stop you ranking high.

I stand by my 'shame on them' because people die through lack of donors.

It's hard enough getting them as it is, so if one person comes along who's kid did manage to get a donated organ (which is more than the other 30% who die without one) isn't the fact that they want to pick and choose, and their ungratefeulness, going to put off future donors because they think that the hard decison they have to make of a surgeon cutting out their kids organs and burying them incomplete (a couple of common donation fears) only to find someone didn't appreciate them and wished they'd never been given them?

This sort of PR does organ donation no good whatsoever and a few poeple may now think twice after reading that story and becasue of that, if only 1 life is lost as a result of a change of mind to donate, then yes, definitely Shame on Them.

Also, they didnt die because of the lungs they got. Not at all. In fact most smokers will live well past 60 years old so she wasnt risking a shorter lifespan at all. Many smokers also die of other things before a smoking-related illness.

I see the point about arguing they should be informed. Had it been left at that, fair enough. But to then start saying she would have rather died, and starting claims proceedings well, I think that's taking the mickey out of the NHS and organ donation. Someone else could have had those lungs and been very grateful today.

wheat and chaff springs to mind

In light of why the thread was started I dont think it is a way to evaluate a web design company - there are more important things to look for, and i'd say look at W3C validation as a tie-breaker after narrowing down a couple of contenders if there isn't much else to separate them.

We validate almost all sites these days insofar as we can, but the customer hasn't got a clue what it is so no point trying to impress them with it if they don't know how it benefits them. They are more concerned with other matters like cost, achieving the look and feel they want, will it work (if its dynamic) and will it actually rank somewhere for decent keywords once launched (the rest is up to them after that of course) and usability if it's got a csm, cart, etc. Oh and aftercare is another big concern. Its not always built in to the quote, but if a glitch appears after 3 weeks, they will expect you to fix it for free whether you included aftercare or not.

I doubt 'rebecca' will take any notice of what you write. She doesn't have to; she can keep posting nonsense and it achieves her goal.

I find it difficult they didnt know there was such a thing as marginal organs and didnt think to ask.

Also, if you're a person waiting for a lung transplant you would think they would be knowledge about what was involved and would be asking all sorts of questions to which you would get answers. They dont claim they were lied to, just that they weren't informed. So why ask the question now?

If she was adamant she never wanted a smokers lungs then she would have made that clear at the assessment and they would have said "well, you may get them, you may not" thus she takes a chance, or she doesn't.

There are people who dont get the chance she got and its easy to lay blame after death.

Is the dad seriously telling us she'd have preferred to die?

So having a smokers lungs was worse than spending more time with loved ones, or simply being alive longer?

So the parents dont look back and consider how grateful they were for that extra time with their daughter? Do they wish she had said "no thanks" and let her die for that reason? Hmm, sorry no, I do not buy it.

Is everyone she knows and likes, a non-smoker? They'd have to be if she was so repelled she would put her own principal before her own life.

And the worse thing? Someone's child died to give up that lung, and they chose to donate it, and look where it ended up? Shame on them, I say. Someone else could have had it whose parents deserved to see their kid live longer.

Another excuse for a claim.