Undeveloped.com Experience

Don Gondon said:

Could you PM me a domain name to check?

Click to expand...

domain: mediadigitali.it

verification tool: dns-check.nic .it (without the space before .it)

set the name servers to: ns1.undevelped.com and ns2.undeveloped.com

then click on "DNS Configuration Check"

thank you

This one is on Efty nameservers, I meant the one that would be showing errors at the moment...

Edit: Have you only used this validation tool, or did you try to actually change nameservers to Undeveloped?

Yes, I just rechecked using https://dns-check.nic.it
It fails exactly on this unnecessary MX record which is set by Undeveloped.
See CNAMEHostTest section.

Don Gondon said:

This one is on Efty nameservers, I meant the one that would be showing errors at the moment...

Edit: Have you only used this validation tool, or did you try to actually change nameservers to Undeveloped?

Click to expand...

The verification is performed when a request to change the authoritative name servers is made.
If the test fails, the request is refused.
So no need to be already on undeveloped name servers to perform the test.

I've tried to change the name servers but all the 4 Registrars received a bad response from the .it Registry NIC.it

from dan's website
"See our reviews"

"
Dan is an amazing barber
Dan is an amazing barber! My son and I enjoy every experience we have at Citizen Shave. Dan is friendly, experienced and has and extensive array of products including shaving products, pomades and more. I keep a full beard, and I know it's in good hands at Citizen Shave when Im due for a trim. And when it's time for it to go, nothing better than a hot towel shave. Highly recommended.
on and I enjoy every experience we have at Citizen Shave. Dan is friendly, experienced and has and extensive array of products including shaving products, pomades and more. I keep a full beard, and I know it's in good hands at Citizen Shave when Im due for a trim. And when it's time for it to go, nothing better than a hot towel shave. Highly recommended."

Thats a weird system by these registrars. Normally you just change nameservers to anything and its only your fault if something doesn't work.

Undeveloped tries to add this MX record, when you run a test, but they can't, because the domain is not on their nameservers. It is like testing whether someone can drive a car without letting him get into that car – see, he can't drive!

Do all of those 4 registrars follow the same rules about nameservers change?

Jurgen Wolf said:

Yes, I just rechecked using https://dns-check.nic.it
It fails exactly on this unnecessary MX record which is set by Undeveloped.
See CNAMEHostTest section.

Click to expand...

It verifies that the nameservers inserted in the SOA, NS and where indicated MX records, are not a CNAME

Name Details Test Status
mx.mediadigitali.it. Unresolvable host mx.mediadigitali.it. FAILED

p.s. I have reported this MX issue 2 weeks ago in this thread - it was ignored.
So ask them directly...

Don Gondon said:

Thats a weird system by these registrars.

Click to expand...

Such DNS checks are REQUIRED by .IT REGISTRY and few other registries as well!

I have something to say about the graph on the landing page. Towards the end of each month the graph looks great as visitor numbers accumulate, causing that month to peak on the chart. At the start of each month, viewer numbers look like they crash on the chart. By the 20th of each month the chart for that month starts looking good again. I don't know how it can be fixed, to not look like with the start of each month, we've lost most viewers to our domains?

I don't own .IT domains as of today... but I have this abnormal MX record by Undeveloped on all other my domains which are listed and parked there.
100% Undeveloped issue.

Jurgen Wolf said:

It verifies that the nameservers inserted in the SOA, NS and where indicated MX records, are not a CNAME

Name Details Test Status
mx.mediadigitali.it. Unresolvable host mx.mediadigitali.it. FAILED

p.s. I have reported this MX issue 2 weeks ago in this thread - it was ignored.
So ask them directly...

Click to expand...

They keep telling me (one week now, 4 o 5 emails) that they are managing almost 14.000 .it domains without problems, so the issue is not on their side

Don Gondon said:

Thats a weird system by these registrars. Normally you just change nameservers to anything and its only your fault if something doesn't work.

Undeveloped tries to add this MX record, when you run a test, but they can't, because the domain is not on their nameservers. It is like testing whether someone can drive a car without letting him get into that car – see, he can't drive!

Do all of those 4 registrars follow the same rules about nameservers change?

Click to expand...

The rules are set by the Registry

Registrar have to comply to them

Ok, then you and @Jurgen Wolf are right about this, this MX should not be necessary.

blu001 said:

They keep telling me (one week now, 4 o 5 emails) that they are managing almost 14.000 .it domains without problems, so the issue is not on their side

Click to expand...

Looks that the mentioned MX bug/issue appeared recently... when they updated their DNS Zone template for parked domains.

And you can list even 1M .IT domains there...
It doesn't matter anything.

We are talking about DNS...
.IT Registry doesn't allow to set nameservers if their configuration is improper.
In our case, we have this abnormal MX record.

Jurgen Wolf said:

Looks that the mentioned MX bug/issue appeared recently... when they updated their DNS Zone template for parked domains.

Click to expand...

I think the same thing.
Hope they read the thread and check the issue

After some testing, it's the 0.2 alpha overlay they add to any custom background image that makes it difficult to work with that dark green text.

Tested many backgrounds myself and found the only one that works okay with that text is black IMO. All other colours seemed to go unclear, fuzzy etc. I am happy enough without a background right now and removed my old background as it clashed with that green text. The pages look good out of the box and I really don't think it makes much difference in terms of conversions having a background IMO.

Yeah I agree @joro001, black or dark blue like nighttime backgrounds and dimly lit environments do make the dark green text pop that little bit more.

domains21 said:

If they add a light grey or green background to the domain info container then it makes for a better default look.

Show attachment 122892

Show attachment 122893

I did mess about in Dev Tools with my own background choice and a change to font sizes and colours and ended up with something I liked.

Setting up a few text styles and having a script read the length of the domain and applying said style to the element would provide a means to better display short, medium and loooong names. (I think I set the first font-size to 4rem and the other to 2.5rem)

Show attachment 122895 Show attachment 122896

Did a mobile test too and removed the overly large top padding. (why is that there on smaller devices?)

Show attachment 122897 Show attachment 122898

In my opinion a default look with a gradient background like above but using DAN colours could make for a very nice looking lander. Accommodating custom backgrounds is the tricky part, although allowing the seller to select from a selection of styles or even allow them to input their own text and link colours could be an answer?

I'm no designer or anything, I just like to mess around and tweak things sometimes.

Click to expand...

Damn dude your lander looks very nice.


I agree they should definitely let us customize landers by picking font colors on the main section. Extra points for DAN vs competition.

If not possible, keep the text white on landers with background, just like in the example above. (The domain name xxx.com is for sale! Listed by xxx).

All white text is how it used to be 2 days ago btw. I guess they must be really busy with all the programming and updates.

I love that our input is taken into consideration and implemented right in front of us.

While doing some more testing I realised that the reason custom backgrounds are seemingly overly compressed isn't that at all. They are in fact being resized to a maximum of 500 pixels in height and then using the cover attribute to have your web browser stretch the image to the required size. Resulting in the blurry compressed look you see on larger resolution displays.

And then I came to notice that it does kind of mention this in the information tooltip where you upload your custom banner image but, I bet that hasn't stopped only myself in reading that to mean that we can use larger images as long as they don't exceed the filesize limit. As it doesn't mention that the images we use will be resized in proportion to these 1280x500 (w x h) maximum dimensions.

Examples:

A 1920x1080 image will become 750x500

I then started cropping to try and help with the quality but never realised that these were also being resized:

A 1920x800 image will become 1200x500
A 1920x600 image will become 1280x400
A 1600x500 image will become 1200x400
and so on...

---------------------

So if you want your backgrounds to retain their quality (after all they say up to 2MB maximum filesize allowed), crop your image as best you can from its original size to have 1280 pixels in width and 500 pixels in height.

...doesn't hurt to add a little blur to it either.

Time for some praise: The pages load incredibly fast. At least where I am.

I'm using the following background ->>
https://pixabay.com/images/id-1779589/ . (Feel free to use it if you want).

I think that dark blue/green combo looks great.

Below are some screenshot from actual look on desktop and mobile.

That does look good. Nice choice.

I removed my background and kept the default white one... looks good and clean imo...