If you're at this page, you know that in today's issue of "Grok," the author has a bone to pick with me. (the link opens in a new window)

Yesterday morning (Nov. 3) I received an email from Grok's Lisa, with a preview. I was "invited" to reply - and given a half day and 100 words in which to do so.

100 words? To respond to 2,000? So, I used my "100 words" to say that 100 words wasn't enough and that I'd post a full reply on my site. This is my reply...

Dear Grok (whoever writes your newsletter);

I first heard of your site in Roy Williams' excellent newsletter, Monday Memo. He mentioned "the Eisenberg brothers" - Wizards of Web, I believe he called you. (I also knew one of you writes for ClickZ. I used to read ClickZ a few years ago.) So, I clicked on the link.

Your site didn't work in my browser. There was no images, no smiling face and the text - which was really large despite my "small" browser text setting - seemed to start in the middle of a thought. (ouch. I'm sorry to say that, but it's the truth and I DO know you've since fixed it. But the fact is, on the day I went to your site, it didn't look anything like it does today, at least in my browser.)

Muttering about browser issues, I closed the site and - until I got Lisa's letter - I never bothered to go back.

When I read your newsletter, and actually read your site this time - it sure felt a lot like David and Goliath. There I stood - just me - looking up at the "giant" with Disney, PriceWaterhouseCoopers and Dell Computers in their client list. And 14 people on staff. I can assure you I don't have Disney or Dell in my portfolio. And as for staff... well, I'm it. At least for now.

I had to wonder - if an un-named, un-linked, unreadable little screensnap had appeared on the browser compatibility page of NetMechanic or Vince Flanders' "webpagesthatsuck.com" site - would you have given either of them half a day and 100 words to reply? Would you have said "does he have a heart murmur? is he clueless?" Why do I doubt it?

You're right about one thing. I didn't pick up the phone. You didn't either. Would you have if it was Vince Flanders or NetMechanic? I don't know.

So, to address each of your issues directly;

1) Comparison of "what you say" and "what I say."
Do I tell people that they want their visitors to "do" something? That for a site owner to achieve their goals (more sales) the visitor must achieve theirs? Sure I do. So do you. So does Steve. And Gordon. And Mike. For that matter, the things you say, and the things I say (about conversion) are things that the late Howard Gossage said about ads. And Ogilvy. And any marketer worth their salt. Why? Because they are fact.

Know what I noticed when I went through your site today? Wow - you sound a LOT like Roy Williams. Which is probably why you work with him, right? Similar philosophies. When people tell me they like Roy's writing, I tell them to also read Al Ries and Sergio Zyman. And Sean d'Souza, too. And Ankesh - a relative newcomer, but with the same flair and philosophies.

And let's look outside "website design." If I talked to 6 SEO people, I'd hope they'd all tell me not to use submission software. Would five of them be copycats? No. They'd all be stating fact. Fact is fact - in any field.

2) The Hall of Shame & Screensnaps
I've been working on my site for a while, juggling it in among the work for my clients. I launched the day before Lisa contacted me. (check the first blog date on my main page) Yes, this is relevant. Very relevant.

You see, I used to have a feature called "the hall of shame." (wee bit of sensationalism in the title) I started it back in about 2000 to SHOW people what browser compatibility issues are. 90% of people that contact me didn't know those existed. I never, ever "named" a site or linked to it. No finger pointing. No names or riducule. Ever. That's just not how I operate.

Once in a while people contacted me and told me they recognized their site. Sometimes, I'd help them fix their site. Sometimes free. The section became very popular, and people started sending me screensnaps of sites they'd found. I'd put them up... again, with no names or links. I don't ridicule people, regardless of whether they are bigger or smaller than me.

Over time, that section got to be a monkey on my back. Too many people wanting free critiques. So I removed it, plunked a couple of the images on my design page (still unidentified and with no links or names) and slowly started rebuilding my site. My customers come first, and there's no "staff" - so it took a fair amount of time to complete. That's when you happened across it.

HTML, W3, (CSS) validation, etc.
You made a lot of "ours is, hers isn't" comments. I confess I've never had as much regard for "standards" as some people do. Standards don't surf the web, people do. When your site had errors, did you "intend" it to be that way? Of course not. But you follow the standards, right? And you didn't write them any more than I did, right? Browser wars bite - that's a fact.

I've used validation checkers that bloat the code worse than a blowfish. I've seen sites that "meet" standards not load properly. And haven't we all heard the story of Microsoft's little disaster at the release of FP 2000? (No? Do ask!)

I really don't give much of a hoot about standards. I'd much rather get off my own computer, get on the network and actually view a site I'm working on in the top browsers to see what real live humans will see.

And incidentally, you're very fortunate if only 2.1% of your visitors use IE 5.5. Global stats are much higher - 13% (or 11,615,633 people) - at least according to TheCounter.com's Global Stats.

Nose or no nose...
Fact is, we do not have the same target market. Disney isn't going to visit my site for conversion help anytime soon. Dell probably won't, either. And my customers aren't going to ask you for a quote any time soon.

You know, oddly enough, I think if you had picked up the phone to say "Hey, that's my site" - as many other people have in the past, you might actually like who I am and the way I operate. And maybe not. Our styles of response are, after all, hugely different.

You will notice that I have removed the un-named, un-linked photo. You will also notice that I did not post this to my main page. Only your readers have the link so they can hear "my" side of the story. I didn't point fingers or name you or ridicule you before - and I won't do it now. That's just my style.

Whether you do or don't have a nose, and whether you do or do not have it out of joint (your words in your newsletter) - I do hope you can see and respect the integrity in that.

Sincerely,
Linda

P.S. And if you have a reader or two that has a tiny budget, more my size than yours, they're welcome to contact me. Heck, I'll even tell them why my watch was on my right arm. ; )