Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses The Internet Your Rights Online

NZ Business Fined For Out-of-Date Website 377

Posted by timothy from the how-to-kill-a-golden-goose dept.
Peter writes "A story reports that a restaurant in New Zealand has been fined NZ$3000 for failing to keep its website up to date. By having out-of-date menus and prices on its website, it has breached the Fair Trading Act, according to the New Zealand Commerce Commission."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NZ Business Fined For Out-of-Date Website More

NZ Business Fined For Out-of-Date Website

Comments Filter:

  • Nonsense (Score:5, Informative)

    by Stevyn ( 691306 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2005 @12:52AM (#11874407)
    The fact that it's on the Internet is moot; it's false advertising. Simply that.

    • Re:Nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)

      by nacturation ( 646836 ) <nacturation@gmAUDENail.com minus poet> on Tuesday March 08, 2005 @12:56AM (#11874433) Journal
      I'd take exception to this if it were just a matter of the owner once having a website done up and then forgot about it. But the restaurant was warned not only by the customer who complained but also by the restaurant assocation. Even after all that, nothing was done. So it's clearly false advertising.

      And, once again, this has *nothing* to do with my rights online. How's that Legal section coming along, Taco?

    • Re:Nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)

      by __aadhrk6380 ( 585073 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2005 @01:11AM (#11874530) Journal
      Amen!

      If you advertise rates and don't meet them, you're wrong. I can understand "forgetting" to update your site, but once someone told you about it and it still goes uncorrected? There has to be some responsibility on the part of the advertisor (regardless of the medium) to make things right. Internet ads still account for billions of dollars world wide, and this is no different than a regular print or TV ad.

      There have to be warnings in place prior to sanctions - Again, there is always the possibility of an oversight, especially in the case of a company that doesn't use the web as their primary advertising method, but once notified, fix it for Gods sake!

      I was ready to come down hard here, but after I RTFA, I don't have a problem with this.

    • Re:Nonsense (Score:5, Funny)

      by mikeswi ( 658619 ) * on Tuesday March 08, 2005 @01:11AM (#11874532) Homepage Journal

      I had nearly the same thing happen to me yesterday as the customer in that story. For some reason, I woke up with a craving for a surf & turf omelette (grilled shrimp + steak strips). So I looked up the web site of this place in Tybee Island, GA where I used to have those.

      The web site still lists Surf & Turf omelettes on the menu [tybeeisland.com]. So I drove all the way there (2 hour drive. Believe me, those omelettes are worth it. They also make the best damned cup of coffee in North America) just to find that shrimp are out of season and so they didn't have any to make a surf & turf.

      Maybe I should email them a link to this story and a link to their own menu. That was pretty annoying.

    • Re:Nonsense (Score:3, Insightful)

      by luvirini ( 753157 )
      There are different levels of false advertising.

      The people who put up that website should have just put in 5 point font a "valid until YYYY" like you do with any print ad. When doing any sort of advertising people should really think of the limitations of what they offer and spell them out clearly. The problem is that many people do not think of a webpage with the same througness as they do an ad in a newspaper.

  • isn't based in New Zealand. Hell they'd have locked up half the crew by now....

  • this happened to my dad's engineering company (Score:4, Informative)

    by CAIMLAS ( 41445 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2005 @12:55AM (#11874423)
    This happened to my dad's small engineering company. He had the phrase "engineers" on the site, when in fact there was a single engineer (PE) and an EIT (engineer in training) who was weeks away from becoming a full-fledged engineer.

    I think the state board of licensure fined him something around $50,000? Absolutely rediculous. Granted, the head of the board was the engineer for a competing company I believe, so there might've been other motivations... stupid small states.
    • Your dad should have sued the head of the board, as he appears to have acted unethically. If he's in a position where he's dealing with a situation involving a competitor, the proper behavior should have been to recuse himself from the issue entirely and let the others decide on the proper course of action. Does your state's engineering assocation have a board of ethics?
    • I think the state board of licensure fined him something around $50,000? Absolutely rediculous.

      Actually, it's not that uncommon. Most states' engineering license board will go to extreme lengths to protect the "engineer" name (and collect the fines) if the individual or company is not a licensed engineer (typically, a civil engineer).

      The state of Texas wanted individuals who are software engineers to be licensed professional engineers or stop using the word "engineer" entirely. A brief summary is here [aitp.org]

      • Re:this happened to my dad's engineering company (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Pxtl ( 151020 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2005 @01:57AM (#11874783) Homepage
        Well then, why don't we start calling police officers "lawyers", and military aircraft pilots "commandoes".

        The word Engineer means something. It denotes a level of legal and professional obligation to one's work that does not necessarily exist in other careers. When an individual software developer becomes personally legally responsible for the performance of his company's product, then he can call himself an engineer.

        That kind of legal liability don't sound fun? Well then, don't be champing at the bit to get to call yourself "engineer". Its not a snobbery thing, its a safety thing: a person knows that, if they hire an engineer to do something, then they're legally required to stand behind their work. As such, certain jobs require an Engineer, not an "engineer" - this is much like how a person can have a doctorate in biology and extensive medical knowledge, but can't practice legally as a medical doctor. Its for safety reasons - he might be every bit the doctor as the real, certified person, but he has not sworn to the hippocratic oath, he does not have malpractice insurance set up, and various other considerations of accountability may not exist. Also, the state did not keep as close an eye on his medical training. Engineering programs are inspected.

        The whole Engineer licensing thing didn't start because of a bunch of engineers wanting to stroke their egos. It started because of a series of catastrophes where nobody was accountable.

        So, if you are not designing safety-critical systems, there's no reason to want to call yourself an engineer, unless you just like the fancy word. It is not just a fancy word - abusing it is just like people who use the word "literally" for emphasis.
    • I think the state board of licensure fined him something around $50,000? Absolutely rediculous. Granted, the head of the board was the engineer for a competing company I believe, so there might've been other motivations... stupid small states.

      That situation sucks. Although it doesn't demonstrate why laws that protect consumers from false advertising are bad. It demonstrates how your Dad's competitor was acting in an unethical (and most likely illegal) manner.

  • There's nothing wrong (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MC68000 ( 825546 ) <brodskie@gm a i l . c om> on Tuesday March 08, 2005 @12:55AM (#11874427)
    The internet is a mature medium. The restaurant was warned about it, and they failed to do anything. It's an open and shut case of false advertising. Would you tolerate your brokerage firm listing out of date brokerage fees? Or your bank listing out of date interest rates?

  • It's false advertising (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sahonen ( 680948 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2005 @12:56AM (#11874431) Homepage Journal
    Exactly why is a web site a special case from other forms of promotion and advertising?

    • I don't think it is. But consider:

      I don't know how it is in New Zealand, but in general in the States businesses are not held to errors in their advertising. Someone sends off an ad and they typoed $10 to read 10--the business is not obligated to stand by the erroneous price.

      Counterargument: since the restaurant was warned, it stopped being an error and became intentional.

      And, is there really an obligation to "keep a website up to date?" If I publish a menu, can't I change the prices the next day? Wit

  • What next? (Score:3, Funny)

    by ediron2 ( 246908 ) * on Tuesday March 08, 2005 @12:57AM (#11874437) Journal
    In other news, the Staten Island Ferry was fined $30,000 after a customer got in line clutching a rate card from 1958.

    Turning to Europe, a German recycling firm was shuttered over the weekend when it was discovered that, in a locked, donated trunk of old books and papers, they had been in posession of WWII-era Nazi propaganda.

    And PETA's founder was forced to resign today after it was learned his father once ate a steak. Rare.

    • Re:What next? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by stimpy ( 11763 )
      >In other news, the Staten Island Ferry was fined >$30,000 after a customer got in line clutching a >rate card from 1958.

      If they were handing them out without telling anyone they were old, that would be a valid fine. The website was still up, they were warned about it, they did nothing. Can you say "bait and switch"?

    • Re:What next? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ediron2 ( 246908 ) * on Tuesday March 08, 2005 @04:32AM (#11875231) Journal
      Regarding RTFA, I did. The OP stated that the fine was due to 'failure to keep (a) site current'. The articles indicate owner unwillingness, but the owner was quoted as claiming he lacked the time or the skills to fix the site.

      If you know a few business-owners (esp restaurant owners), you'll agree that some are utterly clueless on IT and economic/finance practices. What if this guy really is just clueless?

      This NZ$3000 case isn't an ideal case for what I'm saying, but what about the precedent? This potentially sets a legal and public-opinion precedent that I'm not thrilled with:

      1. First precedent: publishing specific details are risky on your website, because you can be held accountable long after you've forgotten that you ever created some orphan page. Think I'm crazy? Imagine a one-time web ad: 'throughout june, mention this ad and get a surf-n-turf special for $12.95'.... oops, no year. Now, your cut-rate $50-per-modification webmaster cuts the link in July, but leaves the html on the server for your/his future reuse, and some webcrawler never forgets it. As I said, 'In other news, the Staten Island Ferry was fined $30,000 after a customer got in line clutching a rate card from 1958.'

        Suing a company for old, orphaned, or flawed webpages creates a small barrier against entry. It gives an avenue for large firms to hammer on smaller/weaker competitors (into oblivion) for insufficient detail or inaccuracies online. If they act defensively, they publish less detail, and we lose detailed data because of the maintenance costs.

        Would you rather price information for some shops be utterly unavailable online? Is that the stance of everyone disagreeing with me here? 'Cuz we risk a subtle chilling effect happening if the 'net is policed for accuracy, whether by a government commission or by competitors given more leeway to frivolously sue.

        Would the restaurant's site be sufficiently fixed if a tiny bit of print said: 'last updated 21-Sept-2004'? Because I can't count the number of restaurants, bars and arts venues, online stores, peer-review sites and newspaper/magazine-based reviews that have some small bit of out-of-date info on the 'net.

        Hell, even this story suffers the time-distortion effects of the web: it was old enough news that I literally found 130 copies of the story on the web. Apparently, nerds are among the last to know that this happened in February.

      2. Screwed by a gift: a friend/customer/admirer or some wannabe offers you a bargain website? Turn it down, because they might not give you keys to the site, maintain it, etc., but you'll be held responsible. Or, in my facetious tone, '...it was discovered that, in a locked, donated trunk of old books and papers, they had been in posession of WWII-era Nazi propaganda.'

        Would you rather only *large* companies advertise online? Because that's another risk: if you can't afford to pay for the maintenance, don't advertise online. Also, if you can't afford to have your ad vetted for legal risks, don't run it.

      3. Killed by bad press: even a lame claim against a PR-dependent company can do massive damage. And PETA's founder was forced to resign today after it was learned his father once ate a steak. Rare.

        Would yu want your favorite hangout to take the PR hit for being 'under investigation' or for news that they're being sued by a customer?

      My original post was off-the-cuff, but I'll stand by it, even if it does mean another round of moderator smack-down. This is one of those road-to-hell / good-intentions things. Worse, the commission/judge used buzz-phrases that made them sound like a bad web-advertising seminar from '98, they seem oblivious to international issues, they don't seem aware of the high cost of content maintenance, etc. Meanwhile, sensible web marketing advice like datestamp or expiration notices never got mentioned and they're making legal precedents that are easily abused.

  • Include fine print (Score:2, Insightful)

    by d2_m_viant ( 811261 )
    This is why I always recommend to my customers to include in the fine print: "Prices are subject to change without notice."

    At that point, I would hope the company is no longer liable for a customer's stupidity.
    • I don't think that a "Prices are subject to change without notice" disclaimer would hold after a reasonable length of time* had elapsed for prices to be updated.

      And why does it have to be in the fine print? Why not make it obvious rather than trying to hide it? Talk about trying to be deceptive.

      Additionally, I don't see how a customer can be held responsible for the restaurant's failure to act. Regulations like this are in place to help boost consumer confidence in business which helps keep the whole merc
    • There is a difference between reserving the rights to change (including increase) prices, etc and making a change but still actively telling people old, inaccurate information.

      It isn't like they got a paper ad and one changed the prices, and the ad is out of date.

      The website keeps serving pages that are inaccurate. That would be like one continuing to print paper ads that have old information, even after one made the change that rendered the info on the site inaccurate and in this case, where they were in

  • If the website was hosted outside of New Zealand. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by xRobx ( 795021 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2005 @01:02AM (#11874473) Homepage
    Well I looked around the article but couldn't locate any information whether the site was hosted inside of New Zealand or outside, but I would imagine if it was hosted outside of New Zealand that they would have no right to go after the company for what their website contained, since it would not be on their soil.
    • If the site is run by a kiwi or for the benefit of a kiwi company, with the intention of selling services to people inside kiwiland, then they won't get away with the "the server is in China" approach.

    • Re:If the website was hosted outside of New Zealan (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 08, 2005 @01:25AM (#11874615)
      I think you missed the point.

      We are protected here in NZ, from false advertising which may draw us into a store, restaurant etc. expecting low priced goods or special bargains.

      The restaurant can host its website wherever it wants, it was still telling New Zealanders that it had specific items on its menu, which it no longer actually serves.

      p.s. last time I dined there the staff were rude and incompetent, and they deserve to be straightened out in any way possible.
    • Why would you think that? It doesn't matter where the advertisement is physically stored, its still fake.

  • Slashdot will be next (Score:5, Funny)

    by Magickcat ( 768797 ) * on Tuesday March 08, 2005 @01:07AM (#11874499)
    Slashdot had better watch out too then. It's putrid colour scheme and invalid html code are even more outdated.

  • This sends a good message (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nodehopper ( 839304 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2005 @01:08AM (#11874506) Homepage

    This goes back to the days of "Bait and Switch" advertising in newspapers back in the 70's. Certainly, if the restaurant posted prices, then they do have a legitimate responsibility to keep that sort of "Time Sensitive" information up to date.

    "The complaining customer had notified both the restaurant and the Restaurant Association of New Zealand that the website menu was out of date and misleading, but the operator, despite knowing about the issue, had done nothing to correct the website."

    This sends a good message to commercial web site operators and e-commerce sites that they have to maintain current and correct information and can't just say "We didn't have time to update things.....so not our problem"

    I don't think I need to worry about my blog I set up one weekend a couple months ago and haven't touched since......do I ???
  • I agree he should have kept his site up to date but is there really any need for big brother to get involved.

    • Re:Give the guy a break (Score:3, Informative)

      by tria ( 556457 )
      NZ has a law the Fair Trading Act 1986. Part of it is around consumer protection. Basically the part he has been fined under is a section that states business must advertise prices, product spec etc correctly. It doesn't matter if it was in print or online it's advertising. He was warned about it and did nothing, so he was fined. It's not about Big brother jumping in. He broke a law (that pre-dates common usage of the Internet) and he got caught. A number of companies a year get fined for this sort of act
  • Next up we'll have people filing suit for personal information on blogs not being up to date. I can see it now: If I had the right screenname I would never have become an opium addicticed stripper for you! Or some other implausible lawsuit... hey maybe I can sue shashdot for something... they have money right?

  • Offtopic... (Score:3, Funny)

    by rathehun ( 818491 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2005 @01:38AM (#11874701) Homepage
    In other news, hordes of dissapointed Slashdotters find that they can't /. the servers because there is no direct link.
  • "Is your website out of date? You could be fined $3000! Instead, pay us to update your site!"

    Makes me wish this would happen in the US.
  • This'll save Social Security for centuries to come. Simply fine all US commercial websites for obscenely out-of-date, inaccurate or misleading information that directly relates to their products, and funnel a percentage over to the Social Security fund.


    One of two things will happen. Either a lot of firms in the US will be sued to oblivion, making lots of money, or HTML programmers will be in phenominal demand, resulting in more payments being made and less being taken out.

  • I actually find stories like this somewhat encouraging. I mean, this really has absolutely nothing to do with our rights online. Which probably means that there are few enough threats that the moderators are forced to post this crap.

    There are about a half dozen issues we all know about...P2P, DRM, public computer filtering, DMCA, a few others that are uncommon like blocking VoIP traffic. They're problems no doubt, but at least a new one doesn't crop up every day. Just variations on the old ones....so

  • Let's screw all the mom and pop businesses (Score:4, Insightful)

    by D. Book ( 534411 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2005 @02:58AM (#11874945)
    This sounds like it has the potential to be a great money spinner for Slashdot users with a litigious streak and zero sympathy for the non-computer/Internet literate.

    There are thousands of "mom and pop" businesses out there who paid a webmaster to make them a site as a one-off after being bombarded with the message that their business will go under if they don't join the 21st century and get an Internet presence. Once their contract with the webmaster expires, these sites often sit dormant for years. The owners of these businesses are typically working their asses off on the fundamentals to stay afloat, and it's probable that many barely recall the fact that they have a (rather pointless) Internet presence, let alone know how to update the site, or have the spare cash to hire a webmaster just to update a few details.

    So here's what we do. We seek these sites out, send an e-mail to their long since unmonitered account complaining that we were misled because the site's details are not up-to-date, and sue the pants off them when there is no response. And we don't have to feel the least bit bad about our nuisance lawsuits tying up the overburdened court system, because after all, these greedy small businesses maliciously attempted to deceive people, and we're just doing our bit to eliminate this evil from the world.
    • A few facts that you seem to have neglected to mention:

      -No one made "big bucks". The Commerce Commission fined the restauraunt $3000. The court took $260 to cover court costs.

      -The restauraunt knew that their site had caused one or more customers to visit the restauraunt on false pretenses.

      From the article:
      "The complaining customer had notified both the restaurant and the Restaurant Association of New Zealand that the website menu was out of date and misleading, but the operator, despite knowing about t
    • I fail to see why it's excusable to advertise false (lower)prices, just because it's on the Internet.

      Here's a novel idea: If they didn't plan to update the prices on the site, how about not writing any prices on the site to start with? Prices are _not_ static constant content by any stretch of imagination. If they run a shop, mom-and-pop or not, they already know this.

      I don't think they'd print a huge batch of menus/posters/fliers/whatever and keep using them for years after the prices changed, either. So
  • Have a look at the prices of pc's at my local computer store [jazz-computers.com] if you want to see out of date pricing.

    Bear in mind that 1 pound roughly equals 2 US dollars these days, hence that Pentium-III 500mhz comes out at around $2500. Sweet.

    Also bear in mind that this store is still active and trading, just that their site is soooooooooo out of date.

    • The biggest difference I can see is that your local computer store is likely to be quite willing to sell it's products at the out of date prices; but, the restaurant was not willing to sell it's products at the advertised price.
  • "was fined $3,000 plus $260 in court costs" - what I see in this sentence is that the fine was $3000 but the court costs were a mere $260. It seems that New Zealand isnot a haven for money-hungry lawyers! Contrast this figure with USA where you can declare bankruptcy just by paying court costs.

  • Ok, try this hypothetical... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Cap'n Crax ( 313292 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2005 @03:19AM (#11874993) Homepage
    (Say) I own a restaurant. I've been in restaurant business for 28 years, but just recently this young man approached me about a "web-site" thing. I don't know diddly-squat about computers and such, but it's cheap. I pay him $500 and sets up a web-site for me. All is wonderful...

    Later, I get notice that my web-site thing is "wrong" but I can no longer reach the guy that made it? What do I do??????

    [I in fact know people who have web sites set up for their business by short-lived companies. The web sites often live on, longer than their creators. The "owners" who paid to have them created may not know HOW to change them.]

    • Later, I get notice that my web-site thing is "wrong" but I can no longer reach the guy that made it? What do I do??????

      Proper notification requires that the web-site thing be named, lest it be a competitor's site created to ruin your good name or other ruse.

      Once you have the site's URI, you could contractually hire someone else to track down how to gain access to it and to alter/remove part of it. Or, at worst, persuade the virtual site's owner to delete it. Really, all the virtual site's owner would

    • Re:Ok, try this hypothetical... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by danila ( 69889 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2005 @09:43AM (#11876815) Homepage
      How is it different from me paying a newspaper to print my ads promoting some discounted special offers, then raising the prices back and refusing to do anything about newspaper ads, because I forget which newspaper it was, don't remember the name of my advertising agency, lost their telephone number, the dog ate my homework, etc.

      It's not different, just because it's online. You fail to update your website, it's your fault, now pay a fine AND fix the problem.

  • I got a good deal on a digital camera that way... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by nettdata ( 88196 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2005 @03:31AM (#11875016) Homepage
    I went to a local Vancouver camera shop's web site, and looked into pricing for a Sigma SD10. Found that they had a great deal on for the camera body, 2 lenses (wide angle and zoom), case, and really nice flash.

    I went down and tried to buy the camera, but was quoted a HUGELY different price for it. I asked the guy to go to their website and tell me what it says, after which the clerk said someone made a mistake on the data input... turns out the price was only for the base, not including the 2 lenses and the flash.

    As a result, the clerk called the owner/boss, who asked them if the lower price was actually on the site, and had a detailed description of what was included in that price, and when it was validated, he said "well, give that stuff to him at that price... and CHANGE THE WEBSITE. " The site was changed while I was still in the store paying for my camera.

    So, at the end of the day, I saved over $1,500 due to their screwup. I kind of felt bad about it, and ended up buying more stuff than I would have (huge amounts of ram, rechargeable batteries, tripod, etc), but it was nice to see the guy live up to his on-line marketing.

  • Hopefully WalMart is next. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by stuartkahler ( 569400 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2005 @03:41AM (#11875038)
    In larger markets, WalMart has their in-store pricing match their online pricing because they're undercutting local stores online and b&m. However, in rural areas where there's no Best Buy, CC or whatever to compete with, they charge the regular price in-store. If you ask the customer service people, they refuse to price match their own website advertised prices. You can go online to order it, but you can't get it in the store.

    Example: Recently, some new DVD came out that would normally run at least $19.99. Best Buy and others were selling it at $15.99 to bring in customers. Walmart was selling it for $14.88 online and in stores near Best Buy. In Walmarts in the middle of nowhere, the price was the full $19.99. No price matching. I skipped going to Best Buy to pick it up because walmart.com said I could get it at Walmart for $14.88. By the time I was near a Best Buy again, the sale was over.

    It's not even a case of old or mistyped pricing. They're actively selling at the price, just not in certain areas where they can get away with jamming up the customer. Most other places that charge less online will at least give you the lower price in the store if you ask.

  • False advertising? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by AussiePenguin ( 83326 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2005 @05:43AM (#11875467) Homepage
    Nothing annoys me more than all the web sites out there that are out of date. However, if it's clearly out of date then is that really false advertising? Perhaps I just have a sense of what is out of date (well some of these web sites will have shocking 10 year old looking HTML so I'll disregard the information within seconds). Though if the web site owner were place a disclaimer saying "Prices current as of ", I don't see why they'd be liable 2 years later when they've forgotten to update prices. In any case, it probably makes sense for businesses to date any prices they publish, even in fine print. I'm guessing that the web site in question didn't do this.

    What really annoys me more though is computer retailers who advertise online prices that are discounted to compensate for postage but when you walk into their store the prices are completely different. Perhaps I ought to tell 'em next time I notice that they're probably breaking fair trading laws and follow it up with the ACCC if they don't honour their prices.

  • I smell astroturf (Score:4, Interesting)

    by acb ( 2797 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2005 @05:57AM (#11875502) Homepage
    This reminds me of the stories about ridiculous lawsuits (i.e., people suing toaster manufacturers for millions, and winning, because their toaster didn't have a sticker warning them not to use it in the bath), many of which are said to be planted by lobby groups pushing for product-liability laws to be pulled back, making it harder for consumers to sue.

    Similarly, I wonder whether the distortion in this story (turning false advertising into outrageous government interference in personal web publishing) has an agenda behind it. Perhaps someone wants to weaken New Zealand's truth-in-advertising laws?

  • "Prices valid through March 31, 2005" (Score:3, Insightful)

    by davidwr ( 791652 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2005 @09:45AM (#11876832) Homepage Journal
    Put an prominent expiration date on all your web sites and you won't have this problem.
    • Insightful?

      Why bother having a website at all if you just build it and forget about it?

      How about:

      1) Keeping your website up to date. Isn't that what it's there for? To inform people about you, your buisness or your products?

      2) Don't put information up that expires. If you are really lazy, just put your logo, description and address. Then there is no updating required.

      Putting up "factual" information then letting it go out of date but warning people that it may be out of date at any time is just stupid.

Slashdot Top Deals

To program is to be.

Close