Mobile version?
#1
.....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Long Island
Posts: 4,816
Bikes: 2006 Cannondale CAAD8
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
Mobile version?
Possible to have a mobile version so the site can easily be viewed on a blackberry? Not sure how easy it is to add but just curious.
#2
Isaias
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Essex, MD
Posts: 5,182
Bikes: Ridley X-Fire (carbon, white)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Unfortunately, so far, it's been hit and miss for me regarding making posts back to BF. It seems that the login times out or something while I hunt-and-peck my way through a message using the cell phone keyboard. If my answer is very short, I can get it through, usually.
Last edited by NoRacer; 12-03-08 at 07:38 PM.
#3
What happened?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Around here somewhere
Posts: 8,050
Bikes: 3 Rollfasts, 3 Schwinns, a Shelby and a Higgins Flightliner in a pear tree!
Mentioned: 57 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1835 Post(s)
Liked 292 Times
in
255 Posts
Interesting concept, this being mobile and typing posts. I guess it's the immediacy of it as much as the need to say it before it's lost.
Although it's true that it took Hemingway years and a few bottles to finish some times
Although it's true that it took Hemingway years and a few bottles to finish some times
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: IL-USA
Posts: 1,859
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times
in
5 Posts
A mobile version would be something I'd pay for.
A number of other sites I know of offer this--a "lite" version, with all the same content but with all the fluff gone. Mobile bandwith and CPU power are at a premium, and mobile web-enabled phones are proliferating every day. Many people (who have access to it) will view the lite version even on their home PCs just because it loads faster and is easier to read (-it's also less load on the server, too-). Many of the pages on bikeforums are 500-600-700kb, and it's not because there's that much actual content on them.
One site I know of that does this offers a lite/mobile version) allows anyone to view the mobile version, but only allows paying members to post from it. The forum software also puts in a special sig that says "posted from mobile site", so that others who view the post are made aware that the mobile site even exists.
General suggestions:
...minimal tables and no javascript for formatting, javascript only for page controls where necessary (navigation, posting, ect). Phones have tiny screens and formatting needs to be flexible so it can be viewed well in portrait and landscape mode.
...ads can still be used, but they are single-word, text-only HTML links. No graphics, no Flash at all. Any content graphics get a link, and ideally there's no graphics inline at all. One small banner of the site's name is acceptable but really rather unnecessary when you think about it--HTML text serves the same purpose with less bytes.
Yea I know, it's not a quick or simple thing to implement--but it would be nice.
~
A number of other sites I know of offer this--a "lite" version, with all the same content but with all the fluff gone. Mobile bandwith and CPU power are at a premium, and mobile web-enabled phones are proliferating every day. Many people (who have access to it) will view the lite version even on their home PCs just because it loads faster and is easier to read (-it's also less load on the server, too-). Many of the pages on bikeforums are 500-600-700kb, and it's not because there's that much actual content on them.
One site I know of that does this offers a lite/mobile version) allows anyone to view the mobile version, but only allows paying members to post from it. The forum software also puts in a special sig that says "posted from mobile site", so that others who view the post are made aware that the mobile site even exists.
General suggestions:
...minimal tables and no javascript for formatting, javascript only for page controls where necessary (navigation, posting, ect). Phones have tiny screens and formatting needs to be flexible so it can be viewed well in portrait and landscape mode.
...ads can still be used, but they are single-word, text-only HTML links. No graphics, no Flash at all. Any content graphics get a link, and ideally there's no graphics inline at all. One small banner of the site's name is acceptable but really rather unnecessary when you think about it--HTML text serves the same purpose with less bytes.
Yea I know, it's not a quick or simple thing to implement--but it would be nice.
~
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Between the mountains and the lake.
Posts: 16,681
Bikes: 8 bikes - one for each day of the week!
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
Hmm. Spend money to design and implement a feature that doesn't support ads, and only a fraction of a percentage of users would find useful.
Don't hold your breath.
Don't hold your breath.
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: IL-USA
Posts: 1,859
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times
in
5 Posts
I know implementing it costs money--but I am noticing more and more that sites are catering to mobile users (by offering low-bandwidth versions), it is LESS load on the server than the "normal" sites, and those of us with mobile internet capabilities are often willing to pay a fee for it.
~
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Between the mountains and the lake.
Posts: 16,681
Bikes: 8 bikes - one for each day of the week!
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
Yea, who has mobile phones anyway? Almost nobody......
I know implementing it costs money--but I am noticing more and more that sites are catering to mobile users (by offering low-bandwidth versions), it is LESS load on the server than the "normal" sites, and those of us with mobile internet capabilities are often willing to pay a fee for it.
~
I know implementing it costs money--but I am noticing more and more that sites are catering to mobile users (by offering low-bandwidth versions), it is LESS load on the server than the "normal" sites, and those of us with mobile internet capabilities are often willing to pay a fee for it.
~
#12
NFL Owner
BikeForums looks & works just fine on my iPhone. This post was composed on my iPhone.
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: IL-USA
Posts: 1,859
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times
in
5 Posts
Numerous sites already do have mobile versions, but you can't see that unless you go browsing with a phone. And mobile sites can have ads, but they need to be small bandwidth. Pretend everyone's on dial-up again!
The problem is the bandwidth use--or rather--the portion transmitted that is not directly related to the actual content of the page (-if you're in a big urban area you may be getting 3G and this doesn't matter so much, but most anywhere else is EDGE, and it does). Having a thread page with only 8-10 short posts that weighs in at nearly 1 megabyte isn't a problem for a DSL or cable home PC, but simply isn't going to cut it for most mobile users.
Also the inflexible complex formatting of the regular site is a nuisance, as no phone screen is big enough to show it properly anyway.
~
#16
.....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Long Island
Posts: 4,816
Bikes: 2006 Cannondale CAAD8
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
And give me a break with the "it costs money thing". The site is now owned by Internet Brands. They can afford this given they own more then 90 major websites. Internet Brands already uses tons of features on other sites yet they refuse to bring a lot of it here. I bet they already have mobile versions on their other sites.
Internet Brands:
Revenue: $104 million (2008)
Operating income: $19 million (2008)
Net income: $11.6 million (2008)
Last edited by Jynx; 09-12-09 at 07:47 AM.
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Between the mountains and the lake.
Posts: 16,681
Bikes: 8 bikes - one for each day of the week!
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
The same amount I have clicked from my PC. Zero.
And give me a break with the "it costs money thing". The site is now owned by Internet Brands. They can afford this given they own more then 90 major websites. Internet Brands already uses tons of features on other sites yet they refuse to bring a lot of it here. I bet they already have mobile versions on their other sites.
Internet Brands:
Revenue: $104 million (2008)
Operating income: $19 million (2008)
Net income: $11.6 million (2008)
And give me a break with the "it costs money thing". The site is now owned by Internet Brands. They can afford this given they own more then 90 major websites. Internet Brands already uses tons of features on other sites yet they refuse to bring a lot of it here. I bet they already have mobile versions on their other sites.
Internet Brands:
Revenue: $104 million (2008)
Operating income: $19 million (2008)
Net income: $11.6 million (2008)
It still costs money. Money for which there is no immediate return. When you get old enough for college, you should take a business course or two.
#18
NFL Owner
The same amount I have clicked from my PC. Zero.
And give me a break with the "it costs money thing". The site is now owned by Internet Brands. They can afford this given they own more then 90 major websites. Internet Brands already uses tons of features on other sites yet they refuse to bring a lot of it here. I bet they already have mobile versions on their other sites.
Internet Brands:
Revenue: $104 million (2008)
Operating income: $19 million (2008)
Net income: $11.6 million (2008)
And give me a break with the "it costs money thing". The site is now owned by Internet Brands. They can afford this given they own more then 90 major websites. Internet Brands already uses tons of features on other sites yet they refuse to bring a lot of it here. I bet they already have mobile versions on their other sites.
Internet Brands:
Revenue: $104 million (2008)
Operating income: $19 million (2008)
Net income: $11.6 million (2008)
#19
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Between the mountains and the lake.
Posts: 16,681
Bikes: 8 bikes - one for each day of the week!
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
That income was from 90+ sites. And it was most likely generated on the basis of impressions served. The fastest way to more income is to not be so picky about what ads are run.
#20
NFL Owner
I also visited 20+ of Internet Brands sites via my iPhone, and not one of them came up with a mobile version.