I keep getting an old site (2days) when I lock in.
I tried to delete cookie set new preference it works.....I lock in again same old site...
so I guess it did not delete the old cookie

Please help!

Netscape 4.7

------------------
Viele Grüße

Oliver

Doesn't sound like a cookie problem to me.

One thing you might want to check under Netscape is whether or not you are loading from cache or from the web. The easiest way is to click on "Reload" (from Netscape or "Refresh" in Internet Explorer). A more "determined" way to reload is to flush the cache and reload using <Ctl>-Reload (Hold down control key and press reload at the same time).

You might also want to check the cache control on your browser. In Netscape, click on "Edit" -> "Preferences". Click on the "+" sign in front of "Advanced" and then highlight "Cache". Look at the bottom of the box on the right side. Where it says "Document in cache is compared to document on network". It should give three options. The first option (Once per session) means that unless there is a refresh command issued (either from the host computer on-line or from clicking on the reload button), you get the same page back. The second option (Every time) means that you load the page from the network every time. The third option (Never) means that you load from your internal cache on your computer at your fingertips and never ask for the new pages on-line. This last option should not be used when doing much stuff on-line at sites like FT.

The only fly-in-the-ointment is that some firewalls/proxy servers will have a network cache which doesn't reload new pages all the time. If you are behind such a firewall, you have to use the option of getting a page "Every Time," and even then, it might not work properly without proper configuration of the proxy server information.

Thanks for your help

------------------
Viele Grüße

Oliver

I disagree. That is a valid option for the client browser and, indeed, the only sensible option if you want things to run at any decent speed.

The whole idea of URLs is that the data they refer to should not change frequently. If they do, the web server should either direct the client browser to a different URL, or set no-cache headers, or set the expiry time to force the page to expire from the cache immediately.

No, the main fly-in-the-ointment is idiots who don't know how to write web sites properly and expect users to change their browser settings to compensate. Faulty proxy servers don't help, though.

However, let me point out that I find this board works fine for me, except that it "forgets" changes you've made if you go to edit a message a second time, and I have Netscape set to never check the online copy.

There are other travel boards which do get this very wrong, but this one seems to work adequately.


[This message has been edited by Kremmen (edited 03-14-2001).]

I agree ... and disagree.

Setting no-cache headers and expiry times are fine. And obviously they have those set here at FlyerTalk. Otherwise, when you came back to the the page, you wouldn't lose all those nice little lamps telling you where one had un-read threads.

However, with the increase in dynamic pages and poorly written dynamic pages at that, I cannot conceive of a single day of using a locally cached set of pages. Now, that isn't to say I don't agree with what you suggest should be, but since it isn't what is out there, I think it is incumbent on someone providing advice to give information that is usable to someone who isn't a pro at web systems (like you obviously are).

I can't imagine doing a day of looking at new sites without finding some that don't work under Netscape either. But that doesn't mean I'll use IE. It means I won't use those faulty sites. Same applies here. If sites are written by morons, you're better off either telling them to fix them, or staying away.

I tried to sign up for E*Trade in Australia through a special Ansett link last year, and the pages wouldn't work for me. Their initial tech support answer was to switch to IE. Sure, it would be easy enough to switch to IE for them, as it would be easy to make everything twice as slow by setting my browser to compare every item in the cache to the network every time.

However, I'd prefer to make them get it right or take my business elsewhere.

OK... you guys seem to really know what you are talking about, so here's a weird bug that Im sure you will solve:

I log on to flyertalk through one of two options. I either use my modem and connect directly to the internet (no proxy, no firewall, no nothing), or I log on when connected to a LAN, that does go through a firewall & the other usual corporate security stuff.

When Im connected through the modem, my posts do not show real time (ie. after I post & return to the page, I have to refresh for my last post to show). But, when Im connected through the LAN, I get all my posts/replies in real time (ie. no need to refresh).

In both cases, I use Netscape 4.61 with the exact same profile. The cache options are the same when I connect through one or the other means.... Thats the first issue.

Now, the really weird thing is that my real time post problem seems to appear when I connect in some countries (yes, countries) and not in others. Example: if I connect with my modem from the US, I dont have the problem, but if I connect from Mexico, I have to manually refresh..... (???)

I assure you, I dont connect to FT while under the influence of Tequila, but, why do I have this problem only when connecting from Mexico..?????

Thanks for any ideas,


------------------
Gaucho100K

The straight dope: I don't know.

Personally, I don't use Netscape anymore (I still have it on my boxes, but I can't remember the last time I used it).

The way the system is supposed to work is that a request gets sent from your computer to the host. The host sends back a series of commands to your computer, including the caching command, and then your browser interprets the commands and posts the page for your viewing pleasure.

According to some industry rags I have glanced at (I get about 5 or 6 a day and read one every 2-3 months), there is a "new technology" on some of these firewalls or interfaces that strips some of the refresh/open new page commands. This is to help cut down on the extra pop-ups from sites that send a ton of pop-ups when you don't buy something from them (like some of the porn sites).

I don't know if this technology actually exists, nor what type of algorithm it would use. I guess I could look up some articles and such, but I am a little lazy this Saturday morning, sorry. (My last weekend off until end of May.)

That is one approach. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people out there wouldn't know how to get it right. Moreover, fewew people will pay to get it right.

In addition, there are some sites that are poorly written, but I must use for professional purposes (educational and/or scientific). If they won't pay me (or someone else) to do it right, I still don't have a choice to abandon the site.

And this "problem" is true for the majority of people I deal with. So, instead of saying I am right and you make it work to my standards (which would be one approach), I recognize that there are problems and I work my way around them. Perhaps a bit compromising, but if it doesn't hurt me, why fuss. My blood pressure is high enough due to other causes.

[This message has been edited by Water Polo Ref (edited 03-17-2001).]

As for the latter, that's bad luck for you. Most sites I use are either well-written or are things that I'm a customer of. In my E*Trade example, I have accounts with 3 other online brokers, so I simply use one of them instead.

Unfortunately, one bank I use a little has an awful web site, with links that point to the wrong URLs, pop-ups and things that don't refresh properly. I've informed them of this and done their online survey. I particular liked their survey question "what do you like most about our site?", to which I replied "logging off". I haven't used that account or their site since.

I would like to call the part of your comment about sites not paying to fix problems "The Firestone Approach".