What is Digg?37 Comments
- alexanderkirk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1yeah, thanks for digging, guys ;) now everything should be working ;)
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1even with 50 people digging it, there's probably 100's of people clicking on it every minutes..
I had a couple of articles dugged on my site, and I was receiving about 5000-6000 hits in the first hour. - Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@nicholasjon,
> To declare either HTML or XHTML "crap" outright is pretty useless. Just choose the right tool for you and the job you're doing.
I agree.
> For me, that tool is XHTML -- because I like following the strict DOCTYPE
HTML 4.01 has a Strict doctype.
> I like being able to identify problems with a validator
You can validate HTML 4.01 just as easily as you can validate XHTML.
> and I like knowing the various browsers are using "standards mode" to render my pages.
You can use "standards mode" with HTML 4.01 just as easily as with XHTML. In fact, the XML prologue many people use with XHTML kicks some browsers out of "standards mode".
@alexanderkirk,
> i prefer xhtml because it's an up-to-date standard.
Larger version numbers don't automatically translate into better choices. For instance, do you use XHTML 1.1, even though it's completely incompatible with Internet Explorer? Or do you use the less up-to-date XHTML 1.0?
> you want xml compatibility with your html pages.
Unless you are serving it as application/xhtml+xml or similar, you aren't getting XML compatibility.
> but if you choose to take html4, ok, but i think arguing it with the "less size" is useless.
I don't think the lesser size is very important either, I just think it's stupid for an article that is supposed to be telling you how to reduce page size explicitly recommends that you switch to a worse choice. - Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1> using XHTML and CSS
Valid HTML 4.01 documents are often smaller than valid XHTML documents. You can omit many opening and closing tags with HTML that XHTML forces you to include.
The article would be better if it just said "use CSS for layout" rather than making people think that XHTML has something to do with it. - ThetaDot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ironic that it takes forever to load.
- crazzy8, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Great tips. Most practical tips are in #2 - Reducing the file size ... reducing image size (optimize all images), and using XHTML and CSS. That's all just good web development. If you're not doing it already, you deserve to have your site loading slow. How about putting all your common javascript in a js file instead of in the code?
Gotta watch those reverse proxies if you update content often.
You should also keep any eye on hijacking, too. That's a good way to suck your bandwidth down. - michaelphipps, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I really enjoyed this article - some great tips.
- inotocracy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Maybe he should practice what he teaches on his own site. :P
- Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0> With a reverse proxy, component cache is redundant.
Not so. It works best when some parts of the page are expensive to create and are updated infrequently and some parts of the page are cheap to create and are updated frequently. A reverse proxy won't help in this situation, because you need to keep up with the frequent updates of the cheap components, and the reverse proxy can't cache different parts of the page independently. - meesterfox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0poor digg effect. I guess I'll have to wait for it to leave the front page before I can actually read it. I'd love to see ANYONE with a home Internet server, handle the load digg can provide. Even if the computer can handle it, most users, at most, if they are lucky, have an upload rate of 768 Kbps, which is no way enough to handle a flood of users.
- kibou, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Great tips, well written.
Every site can have occasional problems, no sweat there.
The advice here is very sound, concise and beneficial.
Good work alexander - groovepapa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Very good tips! Good article! Good digging!
- brlewis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Dugg. This is the best web site optimization article I've read yet, in that it has only a handful of glaring problems.
He doesn't talk about latency enough -- persistent HTTP connections make a huge difference. DNS plays a role.
With a reverse proxy, component cache is redundant.
No mention of database connection pooling. Maybe because PHP doesn't let you do it.
That Last-Modified header won't make your page usable by shared caches if you've set a cookie. Using cookies judiciously should be covered.
Still, lots of important tips were in there that more people should know about. - wizgha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Just what I was looking for, thanks.
- brianvan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Question:
After looking at the digg download report, I have to ask: why does user Kameraz have a 16x16 icon that has a 30K filesize? digg would be 29k lighter if his image were like the others... that's significant. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It works now :) I think the guy followed his own instructions.. hehe
From the article:
"The guide shows that you don’t need a special server to withstand slashdotting or digging." - LatvianHedgehog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0gzip, baby, gzip
- cypher073, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Step 5. Pony up some "protection money" for BellSouth.
- jonypawks, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"looks like crap in IE"
Stop using a browser that refuses to accept standards buddy. Get a real browser. There's plenty of better alternatives. - bigteebo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Here's my suggestion: Don't run a database-driven website when all you have is static content. What's wrong with plain jane HTML for simple pages? Not every web page has to have all the latest bells & whistles & RSS feeds and all that.
- alexanderkirk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0interestingly my server suffers from the network latency problem for you as it's situated in germany ;)
i prefer xhtml because it's an up-to-date standard. you want xml compatibility with your html pages. it's a good thing. but if you choose to take html4, ok, but i think arguing it with the "less size" is useless. it's a matter of taste, i'm fine with that.
just keep it maintainable, folks. you can save the bytes you lose with white space and quotes at other points that keep the thing maintainability. - conorryan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Really quite detailed, if you have a home run server, this is a must. Links are also very good in it
Digg+++ - jpatch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+06. Don't use Flash to replace menu code (see http://www.nhl.com)
- alexanderkirk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0xhtml leads to better programming style. what i mainly wanted to say that byte-picking with html4 vs xhtml is not worth the effort. reducing the page to an acceptable size is enough, you should then go on with making the site generation faster.
i don't see an advantage in using crappy html4 when you can have all the good things about xhtml with 50 bytes more. - TextFairy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0LOL- Slow site tells how to make sites faster. Irony. Interesting points though.
***********************************
www.textfairy.com - nicholasjon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0HTML might be smaller than XHTML, but certainly not by much. And if you write "nice" HTML (close your tags, quote your attributes, etc) there's hardly a difference at all. To declare either HTML or XHTML "crap" outright is pretty useless. Just choose the right tool for you and the job you're doing.
For me, that tool is XHTML -- because I like following the strict DOCTYPE, I like being able to identify problems with a validator, and I like knowing the various browsers are using "standards mode" to render my pages. - Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What is so "crappy" about HTML 4? It's a better choice than XHTML for most people.
- ch1ckster, on 03/04/2009, -1/+0Step 1. Remove tables from your 'layout'.
Step 2. Validate your code.
Step 3. Stop using images instead of code (ie. hover-over menus).
Step 4. Get rid of your damn dreamweaver, frontpage, etc - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"Maybe he should practice what he teaches on his own site."
^^ ROFLMAO - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Step 1, make sure the page actually loads.
- raccettura, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Not a bad article, but it's all stuff any webmaster should know. Nothing new, so no digg.
- energyblue, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"Ironic that it takes forever to load."
Just what i was thinking! - recipher, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0ThetaDot, quite.
- carguy84, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0looks like crap in IE
- crpietschmann, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Digg affect strikes...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0^ Yes.
- sabre307, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0How can it be the digg effect with only 50 people digging it??? If the guys own website can't handle the load, why would I want to take advice from him. NO DIGG!!!!
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our upcoming 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is