New MSN.com Homepage

We released the new MSN.com Homepage yesterday to match the new MSN Search release. I work on the Homepage team and wanted to give my thoughts. The great thing about this release was this was driven solely by customer requirements. All we wanted to do was make the page better.

Compared to the old page, the new version is much faster. The page is lighter (about 2/3rds of what the old page was). We have also gone from a table based layout to a CSS powered layout. Granted, we were not able to hit complete compliance with standards. We still have some validation errors (about 130, the last time i checked) in the W3C Validator. We still have a couple of accessibility issues. All we ask for is for people to look at the page as a work in progress.

I have seen some feedback that we should not have declared the doctype as XHTML Strict. If anything, we are closer to HTML 4.01. I agree. But our target is to get to XHTML strict. We realize we are not at a point where we can say we have achieved our goal. We will be working hard to get to that goal. Let us know how we are doing. Where are we slipping up? What do we need to fix? We are listening.

By the way, we also did a new release of the My MSN page today to match the homepage's lighter theme. You would only get this lighter theme if you had not selected your own theme.

- Venkat

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

Comments

• Anonymous
  February 01, 2005
  I would like to see currency convertors, it'd be great if I can type "US$19 in euros" and get results.
  
  The design itself is good but I would prefer if it is less cluttered. There are so many links all around, it makes me think if it is really neccesary

• Anonymous
  February 01, 2005
  <p>Well, congrats on having the desire to use CSS and XHTML. It must be very frustrating as a developer to have to let a product go live when you are so close to having totally valid code! I know I wouldn't like that...</p>
  
  <p>Really I see the best outcome of this is that now there are people inside MS who are going to care about standards compliance. I think I speak for every web developer out there when I say: we need the next version of IE to be standards compliant if the dream of XHTML development is to come true. I haven't looked at your code but I'm willing to bet that in writing this new page, you had to read about many of IE's quirks. This will help you understand why I, for example, increase my time estimate for any web development by 20-30%, just for time spent tracking IE bugs. Please, please do what you can to impart the importance of this to them. I know that Microsoft has zero business interest in making things standards compliant (web devs will always be forced to accommodate for MS' failings) but just on a developer-to-developer level, maybe there can be some sympathy for the struggle taking place here.</p>

• Anonymous
  February 01, 2005
  Congrats on all the hard work.
  
  Just my 2 cents on http://www.msn.com/ :
  
  [1] The left navigation transition with the blue background seems 'abrupt' and 'hard'. Maybe putting a little more padding-left would help and/or making the left navigation background (light blue) more 'fade' into the dark blue background.
  
  [2] I might actually perfer the 'Simple White' theme over the 'Classic Blue' if the 100% width header blue looked more like what is found at http://beta.search.msn.com/results.aspx
  
  [3] The fonts are just slightly too small. Maybe making the font just a little bigger, not much, but just a little would be nice.
  
  [4] There is a lot of blue on the site. Now this isn't a problem for me, since blue is my favorite color - but I could see the benefit of making some of the heading a differ color (but then again, don't go craze and do too many different colors).
  
  [5] I GREATLY appreciate that the site is fixed width. This is a major plus to me.
  
  
  Listed below are sites to look at for inspiration/resources:
  
  - http://cssvault.com/gallery.php
  - http://www.stopdesign.com/
  - http://www.mezzoblue.com/
  
  Again, the site is wonderful and if just little bit more tweeking was done to the look/feel of the site - I believe the site would be steller (please don't take this comment to imply that not enough hard work was done with the current look/feel, I certainly know how difficult it can be to make look/feel changes in a big organization with everyone wanting to add their 2 cents like I am in this comment).
  
  Best regards,
  
  Micheal

• Anonymous
  February 01, 2005
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  February 01, 2005
  Can you try finding out why it doesn't work in Opera 8.00 beta 1? I don't have 7.54 to try right now, unfortunately.
  
  Also, why are you going for XHTML Strict when you can't serve application/xml+xhtml to IE?

• Anonymous
  February 01, 2005
  >> But our target is to get to XHTML strict.
  
  now that's interesting! And you also target to use the correct mime type for that? So your goal is to deny internet explorer users access to the site?
  
  Congratiulations and don't forget to provide a link for visitors to download Firefox

• Anonymous
  February 01, 2005
  First up I just have to say that you got some seriously big %$#@$ for admitting that you are one of the guys working on this. "Smithers, release the hounds!" ;) Seriously though, congratulations to MS for even attempting something like this.
  
  I assume most of the validation errors are due to some legacy CMS? If so, can you talk a little about this and what you are planning to do to fix it?

• Anonymous
  February 01, 2005
  Why was your target XHTML Strict?

• Anonymous
  February 01, 2005
  Great work but the thing i feel most uncomfortable is begining & end of main block. No border or shades ? It just does not do justice to the efforts you guys put in.

• Anonymous
  February 01, 2005
  Happy to see msn.com become web standard.
  Great work, and only 8 validation errors left
  in my previous check.
  
  The problem seems to be the "target" attribute.
  Of course it's useful but they dont include it in
  the XHTML Strict Doc type. I suggest that you should use Transitional instead for better compatibility. Or, you have to use javascript to open new windows.
  
  My method is :
  function fnOpenNewWnd(objLink)
  {
  window.open(objLink.href, ....);
  return false;
  }
  
  <a href="somepage.aspx" title="open in new wnd" onclick="return fnOpenNewWnd(this)">click</a>

• Anonymous
  February 01, 2005
  Cool improvements...

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  It is nice to see that you actually care about the quality of you webpages. The image search still has a good deal of validation errors and you will want to bug the ASP.NET team about VCARD_NAME="SearchText".
  
  By the way, please do not open links in new windows. Doing so breaks the back button.

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  I have not had time to reply to all the comments yet. I will post a reply soon. Please do keep the comments coming.

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  You are about to get /.ed my friend

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  Drop proprietary attributes! When you do, you'll get a compliment by all the web designers in the world.

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  great looking site... did you use asp.net 2.0?

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  It's about time, the page became compliant. Are you sure you won't get fired? My eyes see the web page, but my mind refuses to comprehend.

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  Melop stated, "I suggest that you should use Transitional instead for better compatibility."
  
  I strongly disagree. You do not downgrade the page simply because an outdated method doesn't work. Instead, use <a href="page.html" rel="external">Link</a> and DOM to cycle through those statements.

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  Who cares? Too much stuff besides. I HOPE you don't expect people to read 2,500 words on a page. Is its purpose filler? Like a desk with so much stuff on it you can't see anything, APPEARS to be a busy desk, but is only a front for a slacker?

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  Another highly compatible way to handle the "target" attribute is to use the "rel" attribute by, let's say:
  <a href="somepage.asp" rel="external">click</a>
  
  and use some global .js file that will take care of these on each page:
  
  function manageLinksExternal()
  {
  if (!document.getElementsByTagName) return;
  
  var anchors = document.getElementsByTagName("a");
  
  for (var i = 0; i < anchors.length; i++)
  {
  var anchor = anchors[i];
  
  if (anchor.getAttribute("href") &&
  anchor.getAttribute("rel") == "external")
  {
  anchor.target = "_blank";
  }
  }
  }
  
  
  if (window.addEventListener)
  {
  window.addEventListener("load", manageLinksExternal, false);
  }
  else if (window.attachEvent)
  {
  window.attachEvent("onload", manageLinksExternal);
  }

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  I came across some bugs, I will send a link to a screenshot your way as soon as I get home from work.
  
  Great work though, a huge leap in the right direction.

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  Are you doing an browser detection?
  
  I can't get anything but the search on my handheld device.

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  We dont do any specific browser detection. We do have media tags to help with rendering for handhelds. When you go to the page with a handheld device, you see the search tabs, then the navigation and then the columns. We need to fix that to make sure content appears in a usable order.

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  What browsers do you use for testing?
  
  I'm really glad that there is a movement towards more recent web technologies in Microsoft.
  
  I hope that will raise importance of decent CSS support in IE and making ASP output valid, semantic HTML.
  
  
  I think at this point scripts need most attention. They are lenghty and messy.
  
  Search field steals focus and I can't use ("unqualified") keyboard shortcuts in my browser.
  
  Move scripts to external file and use DOM to create "behavioral style sheet". Moving behavior out of content has same benefits as moving presentation out of content.
  
  

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  Looks slightly blockish, and the text is not very sharp. I'm not sure I like the fixed-width page, but will compare to another view since I use Firefox and don't know exactly how IE will render text.

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  The new MSN homepage completely breaks down in IE 5 for the Mac.

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  congratualtions on the new design, very glad to hear that you've switched over to a css-based layout and are working towards web standards, this is excellent news. Design wise I feel both styles work well and give people a nice choice.
  
  Also wonderful to see that the page degrades nicely when you switch the styles off, meaning that those with screen & braille readers etc will still be able to access. If I might make one recommendation, have you thought about having a list of links right near the top (hidden by css by default of course) that allows visitors to jump to the section headings further down the page (i.e. Today on MSN, Money, Shopping etc) so that those surfing without styles can easily and quickly jump the the page's content, at the moment they have to scroll through all the menus before getting to the page's main (& actual) content which seems a little off (in that it makes the page's content seem less important than the link to the other sections). Perhaps a simple 'skip menus' link underneath the 'Why does MSN look like this?' heading that displays - Just a thought, but one I think that would be appreciated by visitors using accessible technologies.
  
  (regarding the XHTML strict I think this was the right way to go if you're working towards it, transitional is there for a reason and you ain't it if your target is strict :0) good luck with the continuing work, I wish you all the best

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  I feel sorry that they would let such an inexperienced coder work on their website.
  
  I'm 15 and I laugh at your pathetic skills.
  
  I would have given you helpfull feedback, but you should already know how bad your mistakes are if you were qualified.

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  Congrats, and good job :)
  

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  R Page -- Everything breaks IE 5 for the Mac :)
  
  Great job, please add Atom( or RSS) feeds.
  
  So, when is msnbc.msn.com getting a facelift?

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  When I resize my ie window (horizontally) while the msn home page is shown, some of the text (classic blue) slowly slides down the page ????
  
  Neat effect, but not sure it is what you were going for.
  
  -- Andrew

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  "My eyes see the web page, but my mind refuses to comprehend."
  
  You said it for me :-)
  
  It's like... I don't know - the devil giving away candy-floss to little kids? Why you wonder? Maybe MS is awakening to the power of goodwill.

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  The Simple White theme should be the default.
  
  Don't limit the size of the content to fit in the center of the screen. I paid for all of my monitor so I would like to use all of it.
  
  It looks great in Firefox!
  http://www.mozilla.org/firefox/

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  The green search button on msn.com looks a bit buggy in Opera (7.54). It should be quite easy to fix, as you can do more with form elements in Opera than IE :)

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  I think you guys are on the right track, but I think that the design looks a bit too blocky, and it lacks total "web standards".
  
  Here are a few things I think you guys should do:
  
  1. I think you should have had a testbed, and kept the design from going live until you were completely done with editing. Over the last 24 hours, I have seen minor changes to the site. If I were a regular consumer, and had no understandings of the web development process, I would have clicked off, and wouldn't have come back for some time.
  
  2. You should give the site a bit more padding, or make the text a bit smaller. For me, it looks a bit clumpy and smushed together. You may want to incorporate semantics better in the site was well (<h1>, <h2>, <p>, etc.)
  
  Overall, the site looks okay. I wouldn't say it's awesome, but it's a start. Good job on starting, but I feel like there is a lot more you guys can do to make it better and more user-friendly and efficient.
  
  Cheers,
  Josh Delsman
  Voxxit Designs

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  Re. search page
  
  I'm not sure about the logic of having an h2 tag near the bottom of the page ("Why does Search look like this?"), with h4 tags above it, and no h1 tags. These should be hierarchical tags. It looks to me like you've given that heading an h2 tag to make it stand out when the page is viewed on a browser which doesn't support the @import method of applying stylesheets. h tags get weighted more heavily by search engines for obvious (and logical) reasons, so you don't really want the "most important" piece of information on your page being what is effectively an error message.
  
  Don't blame me - blame the companies who make search engines and browsers. ;)
  

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  It makes me glad that Microsoft move towards using standards in their design. It's about time! :o)

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  I agree with "Mr. Dew". A currency converter would provide a lot of value!

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  So does this movement to W3C Standards mean that Microsoft will release its next generation of browser (via longhorn) following CSS and XHTML standards. If so will web designers/developers of the future no longer have to worry about cross browser compatiblity. If so that would be awesome!

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  Greetings,
  As much as I'd love it if you went with a fluid layout, I know from experience how mind-burningly hard it is. (I have an XHTML strict valid, CSS valid page with fluid layout that Firefox and Safari render perfectly, but all versions of IE don't even show the text of the document, much less all the layout features.)
  
  I also like how the CSS degrades cleanly when styles are disabled, and that you are shooting for XHTML strict! You rock!
  
  It looks like most of what's left could be cleaned up in a single quick edit, fixing the capital 'A' close tag for a lower-case 'a' start tag (that'd clean up 3 of the remaining 8), change target to be programmatically assigned as described above (a SLICK method, btw(!), but the most complex thing to do in the list), fix the script 'language' vs. 'type' problem, and adding an 'alt' attribute... That shouldn't take too long!
  
  I wouldn't worry about the page-type yet (application/xml+xhtml). Take baby-steps.
  
  Again, the thanks of a huge number of people for working towards using core standards compliant setups, so that when IE is doing the dogfood thing, it'll have an internally created page to work carefully against.
  
  -- Morgan
  

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  Hi Venkat,
  
  Congratulations with this redesign.
  
  In Opera (preferably 8 beta) it is very easy to test the result of the handheld styling. After pressing Shift+F11, the search tabs show on top, and the search field shows at the bottom?
  
  There are also header and footer elements that force a horizontal scrollbar, as they keep the design using a minimum width of 780 pixels even in handheld mode.
  

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  Great job MSN team! So many worthless and completely subjective comments here - it must be hard to get flamed even when the community likes what you did. Anyway, we already know the site is going to index better, and it's going to load faster and that'll save bandwidth $$. What about the handheld CSS though - is the site ready for mobile access? This must be headed in the handheld/mobile direction...

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  Competition is great.
  If google weren't there msn would never try to use css or standard conform HTML.
  Lets hope google will offer customizeable styles.

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  "Where are we slipping up? What do we need to fix?"
  
  
  Aren't you being paid to know these things? Do your job, Microserf.

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  Wow, CSS support! Sweet!

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  It's hard to believe but MSN actually did something good. They redesigned their site using CSS, and even more than...

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  It would be nice to add a "Skip to main content"
  link at the beginning of the page.
  
  Use css to hide it in common browsers. When it is display in older browsers or some mobile phones, users can jump to the main content directly without scrolling down for a mile.
  
  Also, specify an accesskey such as "1" "2" for the link, so that users can skip to the content they want simply by pressing keys on cellphones.

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  Man, I hate to say it, but too little, too late. You're on a sinking ship. You all [Microsoft management] should have listened at the beginning. That's where you slipped up.
  
  My bet is on Apple.
  
  It's not to be mean, but to be truthful. Hubris infected the newly-wealthy and logic combined with good customer support took a back seat. So, sorry if the truth hurts, but have you seen the stock price of the former, unstoppable giant, Microsoft? Let's just say that I have said enough. I don't want to stomp on your creative and thoughtful input. You, Venkatna, really sound like you are trying to make a difference. I just hope Microsoft is paying you enough versus the amount of work you put in.
  
  Keep up the good work!

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  Why did you go to XHTML Strict instead of just Transitional which may eliminate some of your problems? And why not link to most of that Javascript externally? It doubles the size of your page content.

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  simple white should be the default. it's beautiful.

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  I'm thrilled that MSN is going to be standards compliant! That's the best news I've heard in a long time. I'd like to know more about the content management. Will you publish a postmortem report when this project is finished? It would make a fascinating read!
  
  - Eric

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  You're bet is on Apple? No offense as I love the iPod, but have you ever seen an Apple in the corporate World? Then again, you haven't seen the corporate world yet, have you? :)

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  I am one of the Slashdot crowd, and I commend you for working towards a Standards-compliant design. Unfortunately, since your boss is MS you will never win full approval in most of the Slashdot crowd. They will criticize you for not using web standards, and then we you do use standards they will criticize on your designer flaws. But I for one appreciate the hard work that you are putting in, and hope that the next version of IE will focus more on following the W3C.

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  I just want to say that you're doing a great job, and that you shouldn't pay attention to the flames above.
  
  To all who've flamed:
  
  1. My understanding is that the site was rushed out of beta to release alongside the new search engine. This would make the decision nothing to do with the poor sods who actually do the work, so lay off.
  
  2. Likewise, the MSN site developers didn't create IE, and suffer from its foibles as we all do.
  
  3. While XHTML 1.1 MUST be served as "application/xhtml+xml", XHTML 1.0 MAY be served as "text/html" to support SGML-based parsing.
  
  4. To the idiot who said "Aren't you being paid to know these things? Do your job, Microserf." -
  
  Which part of "driven by customer requirements" did you not understand? Would you rather your feedback went through the usual Chinese Whispers process and got distorted along the way? This is an opportunity to speak directly and candidly to a member of the development team; don't waste it.
  
  Next, a little CONSTRUCTIVE feedback:
  
  I understand that you may, for whatever reason of policy, be forced to open some links in a new window. The DOM-based solutions proposed would be the best workaround, but if at all possible it's best from accessibility and usability considerations to open in the same window - that choice belongs with the user and is catered to by user agents.
  
  Accesskeys would be a good idea; the most unobtrusive way of indicating them is to use letters within the link text and underline a la Windows shortcut keys.

• Anonymous
  February 02, 2005
  MSN is switching to XHTML and CSS? Congratulations. Now if only MSIE had appropriate (and reasonably bug-free) support for XHTML and CSS...

• Anonymous
  February 03, 2005
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  February 03, 2005
  What if I want to search for something ON MSN? I can't seem to find a search bar for the articles on the actual website. This is incredibly frustrating.

• Anonymous
  February 03, 2005
  Still doesn't work in Opera 8.00b1...

• Anonymous
  February 03, 2005
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  February 04, 2005
  Anything fixed is wrong. Try with a 120dpi monitor, fonts are too little. On a 21" monitor the page renders in less than 1/2 of screen width. Many have beautiful monitors and video adapters, they can render almost as ink on paper, but webdesigners are abusing fixed. This is valid for PDAs for opposite reasons. Fixed is wrong on the web.

• Anonymous
  February 05, 2005
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  February 05, 2005
  nofixed:
  
  It's even true for PDAs. New, beautiful VGA pocket PCs benefit from proper values. Sites that use them can render in a tremendously good-looking manner, in the cramped space.

• Anonymous
  February 05, 2005
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  February 05, 2005
  Why would you use XHTML on a Microsoft page when IE doesn't even support it? XHTML only works in IE in tag-soup mode.
  
  Why not use HTML 4.01 which is supported (although with bugs) by IE6?
  
  The search button positioning is wrong in Opera 8b1.
  
  I hope you guys talk to the IE team and tell those motherf...er, nice people to build in support for XHTML 1.0/1.1 and CSS2.

• Anonymous
  February 05, 2005
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  February 05, 2005
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  February 05, 2005
  I agree the design looks unfinished, but I am more than happy to look at it as a work in progress. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR GOING TO CSS!! And thank you even more for caring about standards!! It's so refreshing to see such a large, profit-driven company put aside time to refine their page in this manner. It's very Apple/Open Source like/Un-Microsoft like... a very respectable move, that is definitely a step in the right direction. And when you guys make it just as beautiful as the old design, you will help convince stubborn designers that CSS is just as good (even superior) to table-based layouts. Please continue keep it up; it's fantastic.
  
  
  One comment though. The fact that whenever you start typing it automatically goes to the search field irritates me to no end. This is because I use Opera, where the "h" key brings me to the address bar (akin to IE6's Alt+D). (If you dismiss this by saying that no one uses Opera, even in Firefox, the '/' key starts a Find command, which does not work because it instead sends a forward slash to the search field.) This keeps me from ever actually using the site, much less having it as a home page. Please remove this 'feature'. Thanks!

• Anonymous
  February 06, 2005
  The basic font is too small. This is even after I've gone into IE controls and asked them to be larger. MSN homepage apears not to respond to user request for font size. It has to be addresable.
  
  

• Anonymous
  February 06, 2005
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  February 07, 2005
  all i have to say is i liked the old one better :(

• Anonymous
  February 07, 2005
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  February 07, 2005
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  February 07, 2005
  I notice now that MSN is using the 'Simple White' theme as default now. While I prefer this theme over 'Classic Blue', there isn't enough contrast differnce in the 'Simple White' theme between text and background color. One thing that the 'Classic Blue' theme does well is having a good contrast difference.
  
  Just my 2 cents.

• Anonymous
  February 08, 2005
  I made a previous comment about how I like the new 'Simple White' default theme however it doesn't have enough contrast.
  
  I have come across a site (that I believe belongs to Microsoft) that looks absolutely fantastics. It is extremely readable, considering the amount of content that is on the site, AND the site looks good.
  
  Here is the link:
  
  http://ninemsn.com
  
  <a href="http://ninemsn.com">http://ninemsn.com</a>
  
  

• Anonymous
  February 08, 2005
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  February 08, 2005
  you can still compare with the old design
  http://sympatico.msn.ca/

• Anonymous
  February 09, 2005
  XHTML href compatibility can be solved as simple as this: <a href="http://www.whateverurl.com/" title="" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">Go To This Site</a>, STANDARDIZED, clean and simple.

• Anonymous
  February 27, 2005
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  February 28, 2005
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  May 29, 2009
  PingBack from http://paidsurveyshub.info/story.php?title=venkatna-s-venkat-narayanan-s-weblog-new-msn-com-homepage

• Anonymous
  May 31, 2009
  PingBack from http://woodtvstand.info/story.php?id=4836

• Anonymous
  June 18, 2009
  PingBack from http://barstoolsite.info/story.php?id=7190

• Anonymous
  June 18, 2009
  PingBack from http://fancyporchswing.info/story.php?id=66

• Anonymous
  June 19, 2009
  PingBack from http://debtsolutionsnow.info/story.php?id=10080