orangeplus wrote:

Be sure to check out the section on search terms, it tis teh funnies.

Curiously, I didn't see "puckerstar" in that list.

orangeplus wrote:

you're just jealous that I'm on the list and you're not.

Pish. I have a big dick. I don't need that kind of validation.

Goerge, your secret life of shame and subterfuge will always be safe with me.

orangeplus wrote:

Any suggestions to the site, changes in admin policy or anything else you might want to throw your 2 cents in about the site and how it's run, do it here please, I promise to respond.

There are lots of cooks here so rest assured we'll gnaw every suggestion thoroughly before serving.

As I read the PDF...:

- Total original IPs (4400) is lower than I expected, while BW is insanely through the roof, especially when you don't allow attachments or host large files.

- The fluctuations in visitors/hits is normal for a site in this stage, but they are mismatched across dates/times (meaning that you get presence spikes without corresponding usage).

- The specific pageviews are interesting, if only for the seeming fascination with banners--despite the fact that few are creating any--and the seeming frequency of 'editing.' You should time-out that function, by usergroup.

- You should probably uncompress the sitemap. How large could it possibly be? I've also never seen a robots.txt accessed that much.

- Have you been able to figure out why the US is your top country, by nearly two orders of magnitude? Do you have a limiting meta tag? (like "verify")

- You get a lot of 404s, and "male porn star" really isn't the search term you're wanting, is it?

PS: If you don't like F-A-R-K, then don't use it as a keyword.

orangeplus wrote:

Links to single pages on the site without the user browsing to other things on the site.

And why might they not be? How can you/we change that? Were single-page visits your goal?

headerimage.php is the file that rotates banners, and such gets called everytime a page gets called.

Understood.

the sitemap is built by cron job that outputs tz, why change it, the consumers all can read tz.

If by consumers you mean the non-human variety. I don't see a sitemap link in the navbar, so that must mean you don't want guests to visit it and those bots have merely found it by accident. Does Google want it in that format? (I'm honestly not sure)

No limits, just the way it worked out.

In SEO and site design, there is no such thing as "that's just the way it is." Every effect has a cause.

Traffic is traffic, and I have no problems with fark. What do you have against gay porn perusers coming to our site? bigot.

If you have no problem with it, then change the autoreplace. It's a meta tag, but any user attempt to reproduce it creates "ASSWIPES" or something to that effect.

pALEPHx wrote:

If you have no problem with it, then change the autoreplace. It's a meta tag, but any user attempt to reproduce it creates "ASSWIPES" or something to that effect.

Thanks for the heads up, Pale. Looks like someone was having fun. Will the guilty party please take a bow?

Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs

Last edited by choad (2007-12-11 22:52:27)

pALEPHx wrote:

orangeplus wrote:

Yes, the consumers are all search engines...

Then it is only that we differ on the meaning of the term "consumer."

Agreed, care to make any useful suggestion on the matter?

Are you implying that no alternatives can be suggested by direct criticism? I've really had enough of that for one evening. I don't know how much you know on the subject of SEO, and would consider my own insight marginal. Still, I don't see anyone else sticking their neck out to help. I'm really getting tired of people's general inability to separate one subject-appropriate behavior from another. When it comes to logos, operational matters, and even ads, I'm really not expecting to have my remarks diminished as they are elsewhere. PM me if you want. I'm not putting up with more abuse on these sorts of things.

I had no idea, that cracks me up.

Well, it's among the many unpublished 'censors' that have come and gone. Apparently, one person's sense of humor is enough to dictate to the whole flock, if they're not careful enough to preview their posts before submitting. How else would they know which words not to use?

Good God, man!  You really need thicker skin.  Yes, people were mean to you.  I won't deny it.  Grow a pair of whatever gonads suit your taste on this fine evening and move on.  If you are unable to grow gonads at will then I'm sure we can scare up a neuticle fund for you.

pALEPHx wrote:

Meh. I'm over it. There's a general inquiry for criticism, and criticism is given. When the person giving it is treated just the same as in any other thread on HS, then there's obviously no distinction being made between "frivolous conversational matters" and "important operational stuff." I shouldn't need a codpiece to answer technical matters but, apparently, I do.

Codpieces and ovary guards are required equipment for all topics on high-street.

orangeplus wrote:

headerimage.php is the file that rotates banners, and such gets called everytime a page gets called.

This may not be the best implementation, since it forces the browser to download the header image every time because it's not cachable.  This eats server bandwidth (16 GB, or 3/4 of the total used in the report), in addition to being most annoying on my dialup connection at home.

A better way would be to have a directive like where the included PHP would simply cough up a piece of HTML like on a rotating basis.  Since the HTML would refer to a static file, the browser would eventually build up a cache of header images and not have to reload them continually.

Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs