I wasn't sure what he was asking, actually.
http://postcards.com is _very_ heavily modified, (it serves up images and internal pages only), and it's taking "slow going" to make sure I port it over properly. I'll have a half dozen mods/scripts to release (some are updates) once I'm finished with that.
http://postcardsportal.com is not as heavily modified. It uses our modified template set, and a modified jump.cgi, but it serves up external links rather than internal pages and images. I've tested some stuff out on this site, and it gets a fair amount of traffic, without many reported problems.
http://girlfriends.com is a pretty out-of-the-box links 1.13 site, less modified than even the postcardsportal.com site. It uses our standard template set, it has the editor/user/password-logon modification installed, but I think the database it's running on is 'stock' Links 1.13 site. It's our second highest traffic site, and few reported problems. (It gets a lot of "random" hits from people looking for other sites ;))
http://pugdog.com/faq is pretty much out of the box links SQL 2.0, except for the custom template set. I think I only patched jump.cgi to handle "dead" urls, but if you click, I think it still dies on links that don't have a url attached (ie: http:// only), where the "info" is in the link description -- meaning I didn't really patch it up well<G>.
http://pugdog.com/domains is using a modifed set of the FAQ templates, but is a "clean" install of Links SQL 2.0 (a "new" site I set up from scratch with Links SQL 2.0, no legacy links or data). It's not doing _anything_ funky, and I don't think I'm even using detail_page.cgi to serve up the pages (I think it's pure page.cgi). It has extra fields added to the Links table, but no code changes. I had problems with the search_this_category process, and my "related..." link is really just a pass of hard-coded (in the link record) terms to the search.cgi script.
Each of the sites I've set up (of which these are but a few) were set up initially to handle some sort of problem, or work out some modification (often during the alpha/beta release process). Because of that, each site had a different level of code <groan>. I brought all my 1.13 sites up to the same code level a couple of months ago (a process that took almost 6 weeks in itself), to help the transition to the next generation program. Right now the two sites running the 2.0 version are the pugdog.com sites listed above (and three beta sites that are not public, where I'm porting over the postcards database and scripts, developing the auction scripts, and the banner scripts). All the other sites linked from http://postcards.com are running the 1.13 code, with my standard templates and various levels of the standard add-ons I've posted here. http://creepycards.com is running actually, a slightly more current version of the software on the main postcards.com site, since I've found it easier to upgrade/test on that site. That site is closer to what the first release of the postcards.com 2.0 site will look like and work like.
Complicated, isn't it <G>
I thought I'd clear up the various sites, since many of them are set up to show off what can be done with Links SQL from a _functional_ point of view.
There is no question my graphics are pretty plain and straight forward, but we chose ultra-simple for a reason.
Many other sites have done incredible things with graphics and layout over the standard install of Links SQL. Sort of like a fresh coat of paint on the old frame. My sites are more like what someone did back home -- they gutted out the old house, built the new one inside the old one, then tore down the old house. Outside, my sites are plain, inside, the code has been upgraded significantly -- just waiting <G>. (We will be seeking a graphic designer in the next months maybe to unify the look....??)
PUGDOGŪ
PUGDOGŪ Enterprises, Inc.
FAQ: http://pugdog.com/FAQ
http://postcards.com is _very_ heavily modified, (it serves up images and internal pages only), and it's taking "slow going" to make sure I port it over properly. I'll have a half dozen mods/scripts to release (some are updates) once I'm finished with that.
http://postcardsportal.com is not as heavily modified. It uses our modified template set, and a modified jump.cgi, but it serves up external links rather than internal pages and images. I've tested some stuff out on this site, and it gets a fair amount of traffic, without many reported problems.
http://girlfriends.com is a pretty out-of-the-box links 1.13 site, less modified than even the postcardsportal.com site. It uses our standard template set, it has the editor/user/password-logon modification installed, but I think the database it's running on is 'stock' Links 1.13 site. It's our second highest traffic site, and few reported problems. (It gets a lot of "random" hits from people looking for other sites ;))
http://pugdog.com/faq is pretty much out of the box links SQL 2.0, except for the custom template set. I think I only patched jump.cgi to handle "dead" urls, but if you click, I think it still dies on links that don't have a url attached (ie: http:// only), where the "info" is in the link description -- meaning I didn't really patch it up well<G>.
http://pugdog.com/domains is using a modifed set of the FAQ templates, but is a "clean" install of Links SQL 2.0 (a "new" site I set up from scratch with Links SQL 2.0, no legacy links or data). It's not doing _anything_ funky, and I don't think I'm even using detail_page.cgi to serve up the pages (I think it's pure page.cgi). It has extra fields added to the Links table, but no code changes. I had problems with the search_this_category process, and my "related..." link is really just a pass of hard-coded (in the link record) terms to the search.cgi script.
Each of the sites I've set up (of which these are but a few) were set up initially to handle some sort of problem, or work out some modification (often during the alpha/beta release process). Because of that, each site had a different level of code <groan>. I brought all my 1.13 sites up to the same code level a couple of months ago (a process that took almost 6 weeks in itself), to help the transition to the next generation program. Right now the two sites running the 2.0 version are the pugdog.com sites listed above (and three beta sites that are not public, where I'm porting over the postcards database and scripts, developing the auction scripts, and the banner scripts). All the other sites linked from http://postcards.com are running the 1.13 code, with my standard templates and various levels of the standard add-ons I've posted here. http://creepycards.com is running actually, a slightly more current version of the software on the main postcards.com site, since I've found it easier to upgrade/test on that site. That site is closer to what the first release of the postcards.com 2.0 site will look like and work like.
Complicated, isn't it <G>
I thought I'd clear up the various sites, since many of them are set up to show off what can be done with Links SQL from a _functional_ point of view.
There is no question my graphics are pretty plain and straight forward, but we chose ultra-simple for a reason.
Many other sites have done incredible things with graphics and layout over the standard install of Links SQL. Sort of like a fresh coat of paint on the old frame. My sites are more like what someone did back home -- they gutted out the old house, built the new one inside the old one, then tore down the old house. Outside, my sites are plain, inside, the code has been upgraded significantly -- just waiting <G>. (We will be seeking a graphic designer in the next months maybe to unify the look....??)
PUGDOGŪ
PUGDOGŪ Enterprises, Inc.
FAQ: http://pugdog.com/FAQ
