• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Dedicated server ...

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #11
    The graphics - please send me your compressed ones -

    banner.gif is currently 6418 bytes and holiday.jpg is 5893 bytes - I can't knock more than 100 bytes or so off either without them looking dire.

    Frameset - yes I know it's quite a size but it's only served once and as I mentioned many visitors are repeat callers - I did run with a smaller version once but it made no appreciable difference that I could see and didn't look so good. I'm not much cop with graphics as you may have spotted

    The sum total of javascript is
    Code:
     
    <script type="text/javascript" language="JavaScript">
     if (parent.frames.length)  { top.location.href = location.href }
    </script>
    
    in the frameset and
    
    <script type="text/javascript" language="JavaScript">
      if (top.length == 0) window.location.replace('index.php')
    </script>
    
    in the main page
    which is hardly excessive

    The banners ads are served by the banner company and outside my control other than removing them - as 50% of site income comes from them that's not an option - some are java ******s - perhaps that is what you meant.

    I have no doubt I could save some bandwidth but not enough to make an appreciable difference - as you mentioned the hosting is crap - that's why I'm looking to move on.

    The current total hosting costs including domain and VAT (whicj I reclaim) are £32 for 2 years. When the site made little to no money there was no point in paying more. Now it makes a couple of hundred or so a year it is time to put something back in by upgrading the hosting and maybe even spending some time reworking the site source but I've got other calls on my time - a new car parts site as ******* is proving to be profitable and a site to promote an alternative to the umbrella and Ltd. Company ways of operating which I am hoping Gordon Brown will be making very profitable

    Oh - one last thing - can you let me know which browser you are using - I use some php scripting to serve different content to search engines from that seen by humans - if the script doesn't recognise your browser it may be serving you a lot more than a normal visitor would get (view source of frameset should be showing nothing in the noframes portion for human visitors)

    Comment


      #12
      I use Avant (a wrap around for the IE engine) it fixes a lot of the things IE doesn't do and only uses one instance which means I don't need terabytes of memory to run twenty sessions. Not sure what it reports as though - I'll try and find out.

      I used a web analysis tool to look at the site and that suggested a lot of java - sorry I didn't look any further.

      I'll do those pics.

      Comment


        #13
        I will probably be creating a simpler fameset - I took a look at it (first time in years) and it will cause a lot of servere requests - even though each request is for something very small they will slow down the loading - won't alter the bandwidth requirement much though

        Comment


          #14
          For the love of God fiddle, or for your own sake do NOT use:
          1) JavaScript the way you do
          2) Frames or *****S

          The above will hit your chances of being represented well in Google - only people with deep pockets to pay for marketing can afford to make such poor design choices (no offence).

          Comment


            #15
            > The above will hit your chances of being represented well in Google

            Thanks AtW - I'll bear your advice in mind

            www.google.co.uk/search?q=uk+campsites&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

            :rollin

            I have simplified the frameset - it will have little effect on bandwidth but should improve load times by reducing the number of server requests.

            P.S. I'm still ok at egg sucking

            Comment


              #16
              Fiddle HSGM (Highly Skilled Grand Mother) :rollin

              Number 2 on Google you aren't even trying.

              for £5000 a month I can guarantee you a number 1 spot, however your users will have to search for :

              'Fiddle's, Kwikbreaks Campsite no 22 railway cuttings.'

              Comment


                #17
                yeah #2 for one phrase - good for you. I am please to tell you the following:
                1) according to yours truly recent research 95% of clicks from google come for the first 10 results
                2) keyword spaces (ie clicks per keyword) are highly fragmented - this means that you can't just check top 10 keywords because they won't give you Pareto's 80% of clicks - he must be turning in grave now

                anyhow, how is business going on your site?

                how many visits/hits you get a day???

                Comment


                  #18
                  I've already given that info above.

                  If you spent a little more time reading than posting you wouldn't post such complete bollux. I've spent a load of time working out how to get good google placement.

                  Not a lot of folk go camping in January for some strange reason but so far today (9:00pm) there have been 277 visitors.

                  Numbers of the day
                  Number of Visitors 277
                  Direct Access 37.9 % 105
                  By referer 62.1 % 172
                  [cache: 15 mn] [upd 2004-02-01 20:44]

                  The Top 30 of Referers - Today
                  Referer Nb
                  http://www.google.co.uk/ 62
                  http://www.google.com/ 19
                  http://www.kwikbreaks.co.uk/ 19
                  http://uk.search.yahoo.com/ 16
                  http://aolsearch.aol.co.uk/ 14
                  http://search.freeserve.com/ 10
                  http://uk.search.msn.com/ 7
                  http://www.forreallycheapstuff.com/ 3
                  http://google.btopenworld.com/ 2
                  http://www.alltheweb.com/ 2
                  http://www.blueyonder.co.uk/ 2
                  http://www.mywebsearch.com/ 2
                  http://www.ntlworld.com/ 2
                  http://www.tiscali.co.uk/ 2
                  http://au.search.yahoo.com/ 1
                  http://rds.yahoo.com/ 1
                  http://search.aol.co.uk/ 1
                  http://search.lycos.co.uk/ 1
                  http://search.yahoo.com/ 1
                  http://webferret.search.com/ 1
                  http://www.ask.co.uk/ 1
                  http://www.e-shopping.co.uk/ 1
                  http://www.uk250.co.uk/ 1
                  XXXX:/// 1
                  [cache: 15 mn] [upd 2004-02-01 20:44]

                  Here are some of the hits ...

                  www.google.co.uk/search?q=hoburn+torbay&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&meta=cr%3D

                  www.google.co.uk/search?q=hampshire+caravan+parks&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&meta=

                  www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=LIMEFITT+TOURING+CARAVAN+PARK++TROUTBECK&btnG= G

                  www.google.co.uk/search?q=caravan+sites+near+nottingham&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&meta=cr%3Dcou

                  uk.search.yahoo.com/search/ukie?fr=fp-top&p=caravan+site+winksley&y=uk

                  www.tiscali.co.uk/search/results.php?section=&from=&query=st.ives+holidaypa rk

                  Now what were you saying ?????

                  Comment


                    #19
                    > I've already given that info above.

                    > If you spent a little more time reading than posting you
                    > wouldn't post such complete bollux.

                    I was just trying to catch you lieing :rolleyes

                    edit: ok ok, I fked up did not fully read whole thread - my bad, when it happens I will always admit to it and offer an apology. sorry!

                    Comment


                      #20
                      Fiddle - I re-read my post it may be misconstrued I wasn't agreeing with ATW (actually I rarely do except about large firearms and burglars)

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X