James
Hands up, I know I go on a lot about autothumbnailing, probably so much that it gets tiresome, but IMO browser shrinking of images is a schoolboy error when it comes to HTML web design. It is what you expect from people producing their first website, it is not what you should get from professional development companies offering professional ecommerce solutions, especially not when those solutions are based on open source systems that have well published solutions to this problem.
Perhaps I focus too much on it, but out of the hundreds of factors that go into making an ecommerce solution, every solution provider has there own view of what is more important and what is less important. If every solution provider had the same view then every solution provider would offer the same solution, and there would be little choice for clients wanting ecommerce solutions.
It is possible to get by without autothumbnailing by just having product images roughly the same size as the thumbnail images, thus minimising browser image shrinkage.
For me, the issue of rentacart originally came up when I was trying to help a rentacart client on another forum, who had the problem of browser image shrinkage:
www.startups.co.uk/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=140955
I do not know whether rentacart would allow their clients to change their installations (but for the skillset of the user I was helping, i.e. novice, I wouldn't have advised her to install an autothumbnailing contribution as it is an advanced task)
You are right to question me about my 'just a default installation' comment. It was inaccurate for me to say that and I apologise. Whenever I see osCommerce/Zencart installations without autothumbnailing I automatically assume that not much else has been done too, only because that would be one of the first things I would do, but it is wrong of me to assume in this way.
Our
sitebuilder service is based on our own content management system which is used for normal non-ecommerce websites, and our own custom version of osCommerce which can be used for the shop section of the website. We have implemented a number of contributions and changes which fits in with what we and our clients feel are important, and we continue to improve the system on an ongoing basis. With our service we limit the number of websites to 100 per server, and our service is much more of a handholding service offering initial and ongoing advice, design and setup, and our service is priced accordingly.
I did not say that US hosting will cause search engine ranking problems, I said that if you must go with US hosting you should use a .co.uk domain if you want to target the UK audience. The issue of US hosting has been discussed on this and other forums numerous times, and my impression of the general concensus is that it is very important for UK shops targeting a UK audience to have either UK hosting or a .co.uk domain. Some other people have mentioned that .co.uk hosting in the US also has some issues with the speed of being indexed. Google determines positioning based on around 200 factors, one of them being location. Therefore rentacart.co.uk (US hosted) does come 1st in google web results (which are still UK biased for UK searchers) for 'secure ecommerce websites', amazon.com (US hosted) comes 2nd for book, awebapart.com (UK hosted) comes 2nd for 'ecommerce sitebuilder'.
As for security we do not offer shop configurations where the credit card details are taken onsite. We do not recommend this, mainly because for our client base (small lesser-known shops) it is more appropriate that they send their customers off to a wellknown trusted site (like PayPal, WorldPay) to make the payment, and secondly because it means that both us and our clients don't have to put into place the stringent security measures and processes that are required for taking credit card details onsite. Since we do not take credit card details onsite this also makes us less of a target for hacker fraud (there's no point for fraud hackers to try to get into our websites since no credit card information is stored there). Our client's websites are more secure than some since they are on our dedicated server and we do not allow any clients to upload their own server side scripts (this is different to many shared hosting platforms). So far we have had no problems with security, it is something we try to keep on top of, but anyone would be foolish to say that they are 100% secure, which is why we backup too. We will be looking into providing SSL connections in the future for login pages but this is of a lower priority since we are not storing or taking credit card information - people are still OK to login to sites without SSL otherwise nobody would be posting in this forum.