French PPC

[burnsinternet]

My French traffic and clicks are way up the past two months. From .com to .net, .org, and .info. Anyone else?

Dot coms like Cybercafé.com, laFrançaise.com and leFrançais.com always do well, but are being challenged lately with many dot nets (like Étudiante.net and ModeFemme.net) doing very well. Other extensions (Cosmétiques.org, Vétérinaire.org, UnionEuropéenne.org, Océan.info, etc.) and others are also working out well.

Is it IE7?

[jacksonm]

My French traffic and clicks are way up the past two months. From .com to .net, .org, and .info. Anyone else?

Dot coms like Cybercafé.com, laFrançaise.com and leFrançais.com always do well, but are being challenged lately with many dot nets (like Étudiante.net and ModeFemme.net) doing very well. Other extensions (Cosmétiques.org, Vétérinaire.org, UnionEuropéenne.org, Océan.info, etc.) and others are also working out well.

Is it IE7?

Do you have them parked or developed? I get about 10-15 uniques per month on my parked french .coms, but zero clicks.

.

[Rubber Duck]

France it would seem has the hightest IE7 uptake in Europe.

Most other European Nations are going Firefox.

[jacksonm]

Most other European Nations are going Firefox.

Which *really* sucks for IDN traffic.

.

[Rubber Duck]

Which *really* sucks for IDN traffic.

.

Firefox is an asset rather than a problem.

The biggest problem with Latin IDN is that they are not needed to the same degree.

Most of the serious content was launched on ASCII and many of these sites are struggling to migrate across because they are being "cybersquatted" by IDNs.

There is rarely a good reason for browser to go to Latin IDN sites. The URLs are not easier to type in than ASCII forms even though they might have better brandability.

The French are quite capable of reading words without accents. They never use accents for Capitalisation such as in Newspaper Headlines or on Bill Boards.

Dabsi might mock the Asian IDN crowd, but that is where the real treasures lies.

[jacksonm]

Firefox is an asset rather than a problem.

An asset in that it is able to resolve IDNs.

A problem because by default it only displays the URL with punycode, which also goes to the bookmark. The URL looks ugly, and users wonder if they landed on the correct page. Try selling an IDN to an end-user and explaining to them how you are not trying to scam them when all they see is e.g. xn-w8t.com in the address bar.

A problem because It damned near takes a software engineer to find the info and configure firefox to display IDN URLs.


All things considered, I would just barely consider firefox an asset to the IDN space, because of the punycode policy. And btw, I have been a firefox/mozilla/netscape user exclusively for the past 12 years. I like the software, just not the IDN policy or how difficult they make it to display IDNs.

.

[Rubber Duck]

Before you get too upset this problem only affects Verisign IDN, I believe.

It is a Mozilla/Verisign issue. Yes it is crazy, but if someone type in your IDN it will resolve.

We know people are doing this because we are getting traffic on IDN.com from Firefox browsers. Yes, not ideal, but with Mozilla, I doubt if IE7 would even have been developed for XP, and Microsoft would just have assumed that they had forever to do something about IDN resolution.


Another thing just occurred to me. What is the situation with non-Latin version of Firefox. It may well be they are set up totally differently?

An asset in that it is able to resolve IDNs.

A problem because by default it only displays the URL with punycode, which also goes to the bookmark. The URL looks ugly, and users wonder if they landed on the correct page. Try selling an IDN to an end-user and explaining to them how you are not trying to scam them when all they see is e.g. xn-w8t.com in the address bar.

A problem because It damned near takes a software engineer to find the info and configure firefox to display IDN URLs.


All things considered, I would just barely consider firefox an asset to the IDN space, because of the punycode policy. And btw, I have been a firefox/mozilla/netscape user exclusively for the past 12 years. I like the software, just not the IDN policy or how difficult they make it to display IDNs.

.

[jacksonm]

Before you get too upset this problem only affects Verisign IDN, I believe.

Firefox refuses to show IDN for nearly all gTLD and some ccTLD by default.

When the "network.IDN_show_punycode" in about:config is false, it means that IDNs will be displayed by default for selected ccTLD, but not for most gTLD.

If there is a whitelist entry for the top-level domain and the entry is set to true, then the IDN is shown as intended. Otherwise, it is shown in punycode. By default, the top-level domains ac, at, br, ch, cl, cn, de, dk, fi, gr, hu, info, io, jp, kr, li, lt, museum, no, se, sh, th, tm, tw, and vn are whitelisted (set to true).
Note: Firefox 1.5 and above only.



Maybe the below should be made into a sticky note/HOWTO in some channel here.


To enable IDN viewing in Firefox (create whitelist entries for gTLD or ccTLDs):

1. type about:config in the address bar <enter>

2. Right-click the mouse in the browser's main window and choose "new" --> "boolean".

3. In the "enter the preference name" box, enter:

network.IDN.whitelist.com (for example, to whitelist .com)

or

network.IDN.whitelist.net (for example, to whitelist .net)

4. In the "enter boolean value" box, select "true" and click OK.

5. Restart firefox.



.

[Olney]

I personally got sick of seeing punycode in my domains using Firefox that's why I started developing my dot jps over coms...

It was just a personal preference but seeing punycode sux...
Good thing most users will use IE7 in the future...

[thegenius1]

I personally got sick of seeing punycode in my domains using Firefox that's why I started developing my dot jps over coms...

It was just a personal preference but seeing punycode sux...
Good thing most users will use IE7 in the future...

I pretty much feel the exact same way.

[Rubber Duck]

Yes, but has anyone actually tried looking at how a Chinese or Japanese Language version of the Foxy Browser actually works on a Chinese or Japanese operating systems.

As Phishing is primarily a Latin versus Cyrllic it would totally irrational for them to set Asian Script version of the browser to the same default settings. What has not been established in my view is whether such version behave as the English Language Versions obviously do?

I personally got sick of seeing punycode in my domains using Firefox that's why I started developing my dot jps over coms...

It was just a personal preference but seeing punycode sux...
Good thing most users will use IE7 in the future...

I thought you used Safari?

[jacksonm]

Yes, but has anyone actually tried looking at how a Chinese or Japanese Language version of the Foxy Browser actually works on a Chinese or Japanese operating systems.

The user interface language version of the browser and the IDN whitelists are architecturally speaking two seperate things. FF has i18n hooks in the user interface code to enable localization. This has zero to do with the internal logic of IDN whitelisting.

By default, the top-level domains ac, at, br, ch, cl, cn, de, dk, fi, gr, hu, info, io, jp, kr, li, lt, museum, no, se, sh, th, tm, tw, and vn are whitelisted (set to true).

So, asian users (using FF 1.5 or greater) who are looking at asian ccTLDs should see IDNs. The .com, .net, .biz, .info, etc will still show as punycode unless specifically whitelisted.


As Phishing is primarily a Latin versus Cyrllic it would totally irrational for them to set Asian Script version of the browser to the same default settings. What has not been established in my view is whether such version behave as the English Language Versions obviously do?

I say that all versions behave the same with respect to IDN/punycode issues.

Please, a chinese person try the chinese version of firefox to view a chinese IDN.com and report back!

.

[Rubber Duck]

I accept that in principal they are separate bits of architecture, but as different version of Firefox seem to be downloaded from separate sources, it would seem to me there is no fundamental reason why both a foreign language version could not have both bits independently tweaked to give the optimum user experience.

The rather bizarre and twisted arguments we have had to date on phishing have largely eminated from the US who seems to be totally unbothered about the risk faced by browsers from other countries that are constantly obliged to surf the internet in an unfamilar foreign script. Obviously, the English Language versions are going to require ongoing bastardization to placate the xenophobic fraternity.

[mulligan]

I add a javascript "Add to Favourites" or "Bookmark" button to sites so that the unicode is what is automatically in the "Name" field and is what shows up in the bookmark folder ... Not ideal ... punycode is still in the URL bar in firefox but at least people who use the bookmark button know what the hell they are visiting at a later date.

IE is accounting for about 95% of visitors on my Japanese domains

[Rubber Duck]

Well as they say, there is nothing more bizarre than the truth.

Having downloaded and installed a Japanese Version of Firefox, I am able to confirm that it does behave differently.

No, it doesn't show Unicode for dot Com, but it doesn't show Unicode either for Dot JP, which did surprise me. Paste in the Unicode and it reverts to Punycode in the address bar!!!

[Olney]

The non English versions of FireFox treat dot coms, nets, tv, ws etc, the same.
On my Japanese PC desktop it's still in punycode...

[Rubber Duck]

The non English versions of FireFox treat dot coms, nets, tv, ws etc, the same.
On my Japanese PC desktop it's still in punycode...

Yes, but is it giving Unicode for dot JP, because my Japanese version of Firefox isn't but perhaps that is because it is on an English OS?

[Olney]

I use 3 computers one English OS PC & One English OS mac, & one Japanese desktop.
All have Firefox & Firefox always displayed dot jps in unicode...

Anyone else getting dot jps displayed as punycode in Firefox?

I haven't used version 1 for a while but I think I remember it being unicode also for jp...



Yes, but is it giving Unicode for dot JP, because my Japanese version of Firefox isn't but perhaps that is because it is on an English OS?

[Rubber Duck]

Well I am on Downloaded and Installed today Japanese version on English XP, and it is showing Punycode after putting in Unicode for both dot JP and dot CN.

It would seem unlikely that the White List is OS dependant, so I am guessing the White List has been removed.

[jacksonm]

Well I am on Downloaded and Installed today Japanese version on English XP, and it is showing Punycode after putting in Unicode for both dot JP and dot CN.

It would seem unlikely that the White List is OS dependant, so I am guessing the White List has been removed.

What is the version number of the Japanese version you installed?

Look at the configuration like this:

1. in the address bar, type about:config <enter>

2. in the filter bar, type idn <enter>

network.enableIDN should be set to "true"
network.IDN_show_punycode should be set to "false"

You should also see a bunch of entries which start with:

network.IDN.whitelist.*



They really could choose to make this easier for users... Maybe we should write them a letter :-)

.

[Rubber Duck]

What is the version number of the Japanese version you installed?

Look at the configuration like this:

1. in the address bar, type about:config <enter>

2. in the filter bar, type idn <enter>

network.enableIDN should be set to "true"
network.IDN_show_punycode should be set to "false"

You should also see a bunch of entries which start with:

network.IDN.whitelist.*



They really could choose to make this easier for users... Maybe we should write them a letter :-)

.

It can get more complicated to follow in the Japanse Version.

This Version is showing both of the above options as True by default.

Version is 2.0.0.3

[jacksonm]

It can get more complicated to follow in the Japanse Version.

This Version is showing both of the above options as True by default.

Version is 2.0.0.3


That's the problem then. Punycode is the default for everything. It might actually be the same in the english version of FF, I don't remember what all I changed to get it to work anymore.

Double-click on "network.IDN_show_punycode" and it will change to false. Alternatively, right-click and choose "toggle".

.

[Rubber Duck]

That's the problem then. Punycode is the default for everything. It might actually be the same in the english version of FF, I don't remember what all I changed to get it to work anymore.

Double-click on "network.IDN_show_punycode" and it will change to false. Alternatively, right-click and choose "toggle".

.

I don't think it is the default for everything in the English Version. I believe you can add dot com and dot net to your White list as well.

Clearly, there would be a strong argument for allowing all of these extensions in Asian language versions as the arguments that apply for putting a block on dot com are grossly outweighed by the disavantages in the Asian context. They clearly have the capacity to tweak different downloads in different ways. The question remains, why the f*ck don't they put their logical heads on and allow the Chinese and Japanese to download something that will work for them, before they all end up with a castrated version? I always though computer people were supposed to be strong on logic?

[jacksonm]

I don't think it is the default for everything in the English Version. I believe you can add dot com and dot net to your White list as well.

network.IDN_show_punycode set to "true" cancels all whitelisted extensions.


Clearly, there would be a strong argument for allowing all of these extensions in Asian language versions as the arguments that apply for putting a block on dot com are grossly outweighed by the disavantages in the Asian context. They clearly have the capacity to tweak different downloads in different ways. The question remains, why the f*ck don't they put their logical heads on and allow the Chinese and Japanese to download something that will work for them, before they all end up with a castrated version? I always though computer people were supposed to be strong on logic?

Mozilla is a big, bureaucratic organization. Complete with product managers, project managers, release managers, security managers, managers of managers, etc. They are very clearly geared toward the US market, but don't mind including the international users when counting market share...

.

[Olney]

It might be a bad download.
All of the Japanese computers at work view my jps fine in unicode usually.
But anyway only people in IT in Japan use Firefox, there's no big push for other browsers over here...

If it's Mac they use Safari, if it's PC it's IE...

[jacksonm]

It might be a bad download.
All of the Japanese computers at work view my jps fine in unicode usually.
But anyway only people in IT in Japan use Firefox, there's no big push for other browsers over here...

If it's Mac they use Safari, if it's PC it's IE...


http://himazuj.blogspot.com/2006/03/why-firefoxs-share-is-small-in-japan.html


It's a year old, but probably still relevant.

.

[Rubber Duck]

network.IDN_show_punycode set to "true" cancels all whitelisted extensions.

Mozilla is a big, bureaucratic organization. Complete with product managers, project managers, release managers, security managers, managers of managers, etc. They are very clearly geared toward the US market, but don't mind including the international users when counting market share...

.

Which is somewhat bizzare as there are at least twice as many non-English speaking Firefox Users in Europe as there are English Speaking ones in the US.

Still it true what they say: "If you can't make it here, you cannot make it anywhere."

Still it doesn't stop GM trying to chance their arm in China. Like that is ever going to work :)

[domainguru]

It can get more complicated to follow in the Japanse Version.

This Version is showing both of the above options as True by default.

Version is 2.0.0.3

I think you will find all versions on one PC share the same settings....

The situation is pretty clear. VeriSign have not published an "IDN security document" on their registry website, so Mozilla refuse to whitelist .net and .com domains in Firefox.

Until they come to an agreement, I don't even regard Firefox as an IDN-compatible browser. You can't be scaring off your users by displaying xn-- in the browser bar. They will think they have been hacked or something !!

[Olney]

I have one IDN Domain that webmasters use daily... The percentage of FireFox use is at 24%
It's rare & the other domains are all about 1% & this is looking at one month of traffic.

[Rubber Duck]

Yes, the whole thing comes back to who is responsible for regulating Versign as a Registry, ICANN or Mozilla. I would have thought the answer was obvious, but apparently not.

I think you will find all versions on one PC share the same settings....

The situation is pretty clear. VeriSign have not published an "IDN security document" on their registry website, so Mozilla refuse to whitelist .net and .com domains in Firefox.

Until they come to an agreement, I don't even regard Firefox as an IDN-compatible browser. You can't be scaring off your users by displaying xn-- in the browser bar. They will think they have been hacked or something !!

[thegenius1]

Dot JP always showed the unicode in the addy bar , and im using a english os and never changed anything in the FF settings.

[alpha]

Dot JP always showed the unicode in the addy bar , and im using a english os and never changed anything in the FF settings.

yup, thats because JPRS have submitted to Mozilla's whitelist.

[Rubber Duck]

I think you will find all versions on one PC share the same settings....!

I never attempted to have multiple versions. I did an uninstall from English, then load Japanese, and then uninstalled the Japanese before downloading the latest version of English .

[jacksonm]

I never attempted to have multiple versions. I did an uninstall from English, then load Japanese, and then uninstalled the Japanese before downloading the latest version of English .

Yes, but the prefs.js (mozilla prefs) file from your previous install is stored in your profile and that is not removed when you uninstall software. It was probably created from an older version which had punycode disabled by default, and didn't get automatically changed after you started the new version.

.

yup, thats because JPRS have submitted to Mozilla's whitelist.


Basically, the Mozilla policy is that if a registry allows non-natural mixed-script registrations, then they are not whitelisted.

.

[domainguru]

I never attempted to have multiple versions. I did an uninstall from English, then load Japanese, and then uninstalled the Japanese before downloading the latest version of English .

I think its very easy to get confused with various installations / de-installations. I have gotten confused myself thinking the .com was being whitelisted automagically when it wasn't.

The bare facts are the VeriSign registry is not complying with Mozilla's requirements for .com / .net. You can read which registries are compliant here:

http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/tld-idn-policy-list.html

So it really shouldn't matter which version of Firefox you download or from where. The default on a fresh machine is that .com and .net will show as punycode. .jp and others will show properly in unicode.

[Rubber Duck]

Yes, but the prefs.js (mozilla prefs) file from your previous install is stored in your profile and that is not removed when you uninstall software. It was probably created from an older version which had punycode disabled by default, and didn't get automatically changed after you started the new version.

.




Basically, the Mozilla policy is that if a registry allows non-natural mixed-script registrations, then they are not whitelisted.

.

Well that figures.

It looks like you need to be a nuclear physists to optimise Firefox!

On the second point I find it bizarre that people critisize ICANN for over-stepping this remit and then accept that from Mozilla.

It is not Mozilla's place to decide what can and cannot be registered. They are only jumping on the back of work ICANN has done anyway. Verisign has always complied with ICANN policy. It is just now that Mozilla wants a lot of pre-existing domains deleted without intruction from ICANN which is possibly not within Verisign's contractual remit to carryout even if they bloody wanted to. It is a bit like having the engine driver dictacting how the track signalling is installed.

[domainguru]

Well that figures.

It looks like you need to be a nuclear physists to optimise Firefox!

which is exactly why I've written it off as being "IDN compliant" - for .com and .net at least. No problem for me because no Thais really use Firefox anyway.

[thegenius1]

Well that figures.

It looks like you need to be a nuclear physists to optimise Firefox!


LOL , if you are installing different versions and what not , but straight out the package it resolves unicode for .jp

Can somebody link me to a good screen shot software that is free tia ?

[jacksonm]

It looks like you need to be a nuclear physists to optimise Firefox!

As I said, they could do a lot to make it easier for users to use IDNs. Not only do they implement a controversial policy, but they make you hand-create the knobs in the about:config which 99% of users don't know about.


On the second point I find it bizarre that people critisize ICANN for over-stepping this remit and then accept that from Mozilla.

Well, with an average 12% market share, and most internet-savvy non-english people still not even knowing about IDNs yet, I don't know exactly how many people have "accepted" that policy.

An overimaginative mind could even insert conspiracy theories here, where verisign et. al. were being paid off by mozilla competitors to remain inactive in an attempt to reduce mozilla's market share. But that is a pretty far stretch...

.

[domainguru]

LOL , if you are installing different versions and what not , but straight out the package it resolves unicode for .jp



But what's the point of software that works with .jp but refuses to work with .com / .net ?

[thegenius1]

But what's the point of software that works with .jp but refuses to work with .com / .net ?

This is not a FF issue , they didn't submit .com and .net to the white list correct ?

[touchring]

I'm not worried about FF, they are progressive and will change for the better. :)

[Drewbert]

Someone needs to complain loudly about this firefox/verisign problem at the next ICANN meeting.

[domainguru]

This is not a FF issue , they didn't submit .com and .net to the white list correct ?

Of course its their issue, its their whitelist !!

[Rubber Duck]

At the end of the day even Americans will be forced to understand that with no proper service there will be no cigar.

There will in the not too distant future be a browser that properly supports IDN without needing a super-computer to run it. If the Chinese are forced to cobble one together from open source software, then that is what will happen.

[burnsinternet]

Do you have them parked or developed? I get about 10-15 uniques per month on my parked french .coms, but zero clicks.

All parked. Never got around to developing those. The clicks are rarely the usual penny clicks I see for a lot of languages. It has taken a while to get to this place.