2nd review, Webmasters Resources

[ffeingol]

The new layout has been up for a while, but I'd still appreciate comments on www.webmasters-resources.com.

Frank

[maxhest]

Looks nice. Only thing is one of your sponsor image are broken on all the pages. Great look, Nice job.

[ffeingol]

Woops :banghead:

That's fixed.

Frank

[vito]

Wow, I really like your site, Frank. Very good look and feel.

1. I would add a Contact Us page rather than just a mailto link

2. Your Privacy Page breaks out from the nice site design. Disrupts the flow and makes it look like I went to another site.

3. All the page titles show "Unknown Tag: category_title" on all your sub pages.

4. The vibrantmedia image is still broken

BTW, is that Links2.0 you're using? Looks familiar... That's a good script if it is.

All in all, great job.

Vito

[ffeingol]

vito,

Thanks for the comments. Looks like I have a bit more fixing up tonight.

Yep, it's a customized version of Links.

Frank

[Wire]

nniiiiiiiccccceee:banana:

[Chicken]

Damn Frank, that Links2.0 is quick as a greased monkey! I have in-link and I don't recall it ever being that quick. When I click on your categories, the pages load right up *zing pow*. I'm jealous!

Have to see if Links2.0 is free or if that's a paid version or ???

Search works well also. Man o' man.

I give it :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: out of 5 possible banana men.

You would have gotten 5 however the image to vibrantmedia still isn't displaying and we need to give you a goal to shoot for. :D

[DizixCom]

Nice work with the Links templates!

I've been mulling over buying LinksSQL but keep putting it off. Very fast, and well organized. Made my bookmarks. :)

[Chicken]

So links 2.0 just uses a flatfile ascii database? (Verses the other script they have: Links SQL (http://www.gossamer-threads.com/scripts/links-sql/index.htm))

I looked at it before but never used it. Need to find more demos of both and see if the SQL one is slower, etc.

[DizixCom]

They both have the option to generate the entire site in HTML so the database isn't hit for visitors. HotScripts.com uses LinksSQL I am pretty sure.

Either way, I love the Links* powered sites. They're fast and when the webmaster does a good job with the templates they are very easy to roam around in, such as this site.

[Foxxie]

The website is very nice indeed :).

[ffeingol]

I use the "flat file" version of Links 2.0.

It's much quicker than In-Links because Links generates from the flat file (or database in the SQL version) to static HTML pages. I have a couple of copies of In-Links (for other purposes) but I don't like it as much. Because of the way the pages are dynamically generated it's very hard to get indexed well/deep.

G-T says that you should use the SQL version for "bigger" sites. I've never seen a need for it. The flat file version is pleanty fast for me. It just takes a few seconds to regenerate the site. Now the fact that it's running on a dual Xeon prob. does not hurt :D.

I'll get the broken images etc. fixed sometime today. I really want the 5th :banana:.

Frank

[vito]

Chicken:
If you want to see another site that uses Links2.0, have a look at one of my sites www.waterwater.ca . It's not nearly as customized (or nice looking) as Frank's, but it will give you an idea of load time. I only have about 80 links in the db so far, but enough to give you a good idea on speed.

Vito

[Chicken]

Vito, your seems really quick as well, and looks very nice!

Originally posted by ffeingol
G-T says that you should use the SQL version for "bigger" sites. I've never seen a need for it.
Frank, Vito said he had 80 links, how many do you have and do you have any idea how big is "bigger" or waht the maximum number of links can be? I imagine there is a limit to what a flat file database can handle, and it would be slower if the site was hit hard and if there were tons of links?

[vito]

I've heard/seen the flat-file version go up to 5000 links in the db.

Vito

[ffeingol]

Chicken,

There are 500 ish links in my db right now.

I have no idea how g-t came up with that number, other than wanting to sell the MySQL version.

It really makes no sense to me. The links are just stored in a flat ASCII file. There is a directory for "hits" and "raitings". In that directory there is one file per link generated when someone clicks on the link or rates it.

When you run the site generation (which I do from cron) it merges the hits/ratings into the main links db and then wipes out those temp files. This is all done with perl scripts.

The 5,000 link size was prob. from 3 years ago when servers were slower and had less memory. With todays ghz machines with gigs of memory, I really doubt there are that many issues with the flat file version and lots of links.

Besides all that, 5,000 is a lot of links.

Frank

[Chicken]

Well, your site certinaly kicks butt and I know who I'll be picking the brain of soon :D I may just sell off the in-link, we'll see.