when doves cry
I would contact blogspot.com on this. This really is an issue with their site. They shouldn't be setting these pages to be "cacheable". Their cache settings on the pages being served to us is what is creating this problem. I have to refresh my page rather frequently.
this is what Blogger sezapart from that i dont know what to do. jiminy cricket thinks i've been awol for a week or more according to a comment he left yesterday
Other sites like Democratic Underground don't have this problem, partly because every page hit you see goes through a PHP script, which makes it not cacheable. These guys are writing up HTML pages when you update the site, and these HTML pages are cacheable. This is something that they can reset in their server if they know what they are doing so that certain "paths", etc. of pages aren't cacheable. Then noone will have to "reload" their page. I'd tell them, that yes, their help page here does describe a way to "work around" the problem, but it is a lot to expect users to have to do to see dynamic content, when they don't understand caching as much as techies do. They can control this if they so choose. Don't know if this is a conscious thing on their part to keep their server loads down, but nontheless, it is something they could solve if they updated their servers to turn off caching selectively.
bastards. i can only presume that it's a conscious decision
i don't mind reloading (extra hits for you) but i do worry that others will think you've gone missing or whatever.btw, can anyone help me out w/this: when other sites preen about their million hits or whatever, are they talking hits, page views or unique visitors?
Rimone: I've seen them all being used (including "page + 20 images = 21 hits"), so I wouldn't make any guesses if they don't elaborate.To force refresh (i.e. bypass cache): on Internet Explorer:press CTRL while clicking REFRESHon Firefox:press SHIFT while clicking RELOADBlogger users don't seem to have control over HTTP headers (page control/metadata), so there's no solid fix available. You could try adding some html meta tags on page template, though, like:[META HTTP-EQUIV="CACHE-CONTROL" CONTENT="NO-CACHE"][META HTTP-EQUIV="EXPIRES"CONTENT="NOW"]I wouldn't recommend that, though; better to let Blogger admins work out the solution, and I suspect that possible severe problems are on Jiminy's provider / browser, not on Blogger end.
thnx teemupost updated
teemu: what does this mean, then (under 'hits')? anything i should be all excited about like other sites?
Rimone: It means you're popular. "Hits" seem to be individual file requests, ie. each page produces several hits. However, images get cached for long time, so they're loaded only once per user per few months.I would follow the three other columns and their ratios much more closely than hits; latter is good only for server load, and you got bandwidth meter there for that.(By all means be excited - you got enough visitors last month to almost fill up Madison Square Garden. But if "My site has over million hits!" sounds good to you, go ahead and gloat about that. :)
I can see you now!BTW, I didn't refresh my browser or anything, I just checked your website today (like I do everyday) and BAM there were all these posts that weren't there before. For over a week I just saw that one post at the top about weird crushes and favorite dishes. When I sent that comment yesterday, I didn't see it show up in the comments section either.I just have to say my experience is like that stupid song "You Don't Know What You Got Until It's Gone". I've learned how much I love this blog. I'll never again take you for granted, Lukery! ; )- Jiminy Cricket
jiminy!welcome back! i was worried that we'd lost you. you've got some catch up reading to do!
rimone - why did your traffic double in march?ftr, i do about 30,000 pages per month.
thanks, teemu (i was never 'popular' before, neither in meatspace or anywhere else--eventually i alienate everyone). yesterday in mail, career-boy told me it was nothing to be excited about.wb Jiminy, i wondered what happened to you. luke, the rude pundit linked to me in march and then a few others did, plus the dudes at blairwatch cite me sometimes, always driving up my numbers. as well, i think lately those 8 dudes in the Alabama 3 have been sending my URL around, at least that's what recently-converted computer-literate Rock Freebase told me last week. *preens*i think i've said this before, but i'm of the mind where i dig smashing the status quo--i do the 'subvert the dominant link hierarchy' whenever i can.ps, interestingly enough (at least to me), in the past few weeks i've dropped off reading most really popular sites, especially when the 'writers' (and i use the term loosely) have a one line lead-in. i won't name names, apart from atrios. there are some others, little sites, some of whom you already know and have linked to in the past but i decided they were boooor-ring *Homer voice*oooh, blogroll me, Atrios! hahahahahahahaha.
rimone. i wish i subverted more :-(go on, name names!i figure my site is boring most of the time - cos usually i dont even to a one line lead-in. the only thing i've got goin for me is that i read A LOT.
i won't name names--i don't attack unless someone's attacked me first and why bother sending people over to whatever site to see if they agree/disagree w/me, y'know what i mean? (i'm used to being in the minority).your site is certainly not boring, dude. i learn a LOT and have met some good people here. *waves*
Luke: i wish i subverted more.from what i see of how much you read, write and absorb, i wouldn't think you had the time to do what i do--sometimes if my fave sites aren't talking about what i wanna talk about i'll search for less well known sites that are.
yeah - i dont have a lot of time to 'go wide' - but then again, if i dont, who does have the time?
lol, 'you talkin' to me? cause i don't see anyone else around here...' ('taxidriver')
lol - i mean, i really do have lots of time - it's all a matter of how i spend it.
yep, lotsa time here as well. but 'fortunately i'm adhering to a strict drug regimen, to keep my mind, y'know, limber.' and to do my little thing to subvert the dominant link hierarchy whenever i can.ps, quote was from Lebowski as well. :-)
i'm so movie uncool
*snigger* then you prolly don't get a lot of my post titles and inner commentary. oh well, lol.
lol, superteemu: (By all means be excited - you got enough visitors last month to almost fill up Madison Square Garden. But if "My site has over million hits!" sounds good to you, go ahead and gloat about that. :)nah, no gloating. if anyone reads my shite, i mean 'my site' one can easily see i don't do what other do e.g., the cat-blogging friday thing or the 'random i-tunes' lists that a lot of others do.i figured i'd feel a fuck of a lot more comfortable asking you guys over here, cuz i wuv y'all. *hearts* ps, when i gloat it's about the band or whatever. :-)
hah! LIAR! she's gloating /on the inside/, lol
re random i-tunes et al - i'm not really into that either - but we seem to have had some great discussions these last few 'kickin back' postswe all learns a lil more about each other - and that's kinda cool.
OT: i had to reload to see if there were any new comments (to see your last).i don't dig most habits of the bloggy sort that others do--i don't dig comparisons or awards things (competitions for whatever are usually popularity contests as far as i've seen). i mean, Shakspear himself could be banging away and if nobody knows he's there...anyway if people have a choice to opt in, like on comments here or wherever, that's another story. i love your kicking back things (apart when i scroll as fast as i can while drooling over the foody ones) :-)
I figured out the cause of the problem; here's a brief explanation in case someone is interested:(Summary: Blogger system is to blame, not lukery's fault, users need to occasionally reload while waiting for the problem to go away.)- Along with every page, web servers send some metadata ("http headers") about page to browser, including "last modified at" and "cached copy is set to expire at" dates. Browsers use this data to determine whether to use local cached copy already in memory, or get a fresh page from web server.- Blogger has these dates a bit messed up, occasionally telling browser that page was last modified few minutes in future. That's clearly a violation of web standards.- Firefox (I don't know about other browsers) goes bonkers due to violation, and decides that the wrongly dated page is valid until year 2020, displaying it again and again unless user explicitly reloads the page.I notified both Blogger and Firefox teams about the problem, hoping that either of them will fix it soon.
Post a Comment