This forum waxes and wanes poetic.... A bunch of people must have gotten the beta code, since the last two release also caused a 2-3 day lull in traffic

On sorting the "cool" pages. I'm still having problems. I had to get rid of the "and" clause in the searches to be able to sort by hits, or priority, not by category. This routine needs to be worked over a little to allow non-category sorts and to allow the $build_sort_order_cool to work..

Keywords: I"ve tried to increase the number of keywords shown at a time, but I'm having problems. I can change the initial display, but the span-page bar doesn't seem to work. If I add &mh=50 to the various places in the subroutine and the main admin screen, all I get is the first page of 50 or 25. Any attempt to get a second or subesquent page fails.

Hello Mr. Pataki!

I do not visit Gossamer Threads often because I do not get very much satisfactory response on many things that are necessary. Alex says that "I see this forum more often and also support more" meaning thereby - "No answer is also an answer"! for understandable reasons. One can see how HOT Links v2.0 forum is. It even becomes kind of chat forum sometimes. How the codes are brought up, how good and valuable the discussions are and how helpful and co-operative the people are, for e.g. Mr. Eliot, Brad, YOU, etc

The aftermath nightmare after buying Links SQL has been more than I have been expecting. I wish that right now Links SQL v2.0 existed. Moreover not much discussions or support.

Aboveall, the support even in the Liscenced version in terms of Readme file is BAD. I have not been able to figure out how to use $dynamic somewhere, or even %globals for that matter. For Links v2.0 templates may be familiar but people like me, it may be ......

I even stoped testing beta2 in the first instance when I found out that the moment I start installing over my existing beta1 I cannot search and it is asking for some extra fields in the table (Index_word_count or something). I checked in the readme file and there is no discussion about it.

Well, that gave me a discouragement to test it further. If Alex wants a feedback, he should tell in the readme file what is planned or what is going to be the change that needs to be made in the table fields somewhere.

I gave up after finding the first AltaVista bug.

------------------
rajani

I think Alex has tired his best to do the LinkSQL version. I understand what a good programmer think. They just want to develop the best product in this world. I know it takes time. I think we better to suggest some ways for Alex in order to improve the paid version support. This is what I think. I have brought the paid version since it released. But I still haven't use it because I know there is always something to add and some small bugs. So I just wait for a good version and develop other projects.

Here is some of the way to improve the paid version support :

(1) Add more supporting guys in this board. Sometimes I just think the support from Links2 is even better than this board. If there is only Alex handle this board, I don't think it's enough. If there is 2 more programmers for this board in differnt time zones, I think it would be a wonderful support. Whatever it got bugs or other problems, the programers can answer it or fix it quickly. So that we don't need to wait for a whole week or something.

(2)Write a more details features list what is going to develop. So that it both of us can have a clear picture of what are going to have.

(3)If there is any additional features, make it as a plug-in, so that users can decide whether can use it or not. Because some of the scripts has been modified, I just don't want to write the whole things if there is a new version released. That's really bad. Alex, can even sell for additional cost for any valuable plug-in. May be like auction, classifieds plug-in for LinkSQL.

I think Alex has really done a good job. He has build up a very good community. This is so valuable or money can't even buy it. If there is no such board, my internet life will be not that interesting. So I know Alex knows this point and will doing something that make the support great.



------------------
Bear EveryWhere

Hello Bear!

I agree with you about your opinion on Links SQL in all and general. Alex had done an excellent job without doubts. The way I am passing the field tags to the templates, PHOOs , they are so user friendly and great. They washes my nightmares.
(3)If there is any additional features,[/quote]
However, the product has some built-in inherrent limitations and that has given me a lot of troubles, for e.g. Kilometer long category listings and Gigabytes of Validation pages + the last discovery of New links page becoming fat upto two MEGABYTE for 200 links (No span page support). How can I solve this GIGA nightmares? This are the basics of a program that I beleive could be easily solved and I could easily wait for the link checker if I had to choose in terms of time.

Alex has shown little interest till today and the reaction from him is extremely poor.

Aftzer installing 4600 category + 7 links it took 20 minites to build after it died.

If possible, and if taken serious, the above mentioned problems needs to be improved rather than any any any any any features further.

I cannot Validate because per day I have to download 2,7 million of lines of category for 4600 categories including Alternates for @ 200 Links submissions per day. So I try to find alternatives of how to import - export. But then it has Validation of field problems! The last field needs to be empty for imports. When it is empty, i cannot Index nor add.cgi will work!!!

Can anyone tell me how to work. How can I wish for further new WISH LIST for new features? My WISHLIST is to solve the basic problems which are there.

I still keep up my motivation to use Links SQL and beleive that it will be developing into a mature excellent product, since its just one of the first versions. Its just the question of time. One needs to wait as you rightly suggested.


DO NOT. Please write about all the present LINKS SQL features first. I do not know myself. Moreover instead of spending time in writing things about future things, I am interested in NNNOOOWWW: What is Links SQL and how to use it the best.

How can I apply %globals% to those templates, a killing feature. Or HOW can I apply dynamic feature. I mean real examples.

The Links SQL FAQ has ONE ONLY explaination or a guide that widgetzt and pugdog found it very interesting. What about the rest of FAQ?

The reason why all this, I understand it all. I wish I could help Alex for something.

There are more people who have worked on mods to the Links 2.0 program, because it's 'free' and there is no back-end requirement.

LinkSQL is capable of much, much more, and it's easier to do it in only a few lines of code. You don't need any file handling routines. You need only to create a new table (maybe) and add the code you want to handle it. I/O is handled by the built in routines, new templates are just a call in the program and a cut/paste operation in the HTML_templates.pm file.

Most of the mods people are working hard on for the flat-file LinkSQL are almost trivial in LinkSQL.

As more people get the program, and use it, and we get to the 1.1 or 1.2 release, whatever it is going to be called, things will start to settle in. Links is 1.0 code -- Links 2.0 is version TWO code.

There is a _BIG_ difference.

I myself am disappointed in the support.
We cant go online with the new site because of the monster sized cool page built.
I have brought this to everyone's attention, and some people gave suggestions. Why should I have to recode to have the cool page span pages, this should be built into it by default like the other pages.
I could recode an fix it myself, but do not have time. I thought support would take care of this, but I guess I was wrong.

Chris

The cool page never spanned -- not in Links 2.0 -- it was a mod.

What you need to remember is LinkSQL is a re-code of Links 2.0 -- not Links 2.0 with all the mods you've made. Those mods are not by Alex. He first needs to code the LinkSQL to the same specs as Links 2.0 Vanilla. Once that is done, features could be added.

I've still not gone live with the SQL site because I need the 3-level new mod, or I have to recode all my templates pretty extensively. I have moved a part of the site over, that didn't use those templates, and I'm just using the 'new' and 'update' text flags.

Once the final version of LinkSQL is released, if that is not built in, I'll have a mod for that that works in all cases. I just don't want to make the change twice.

Because it's so easy to add fields, the easiest way is to calculate the 'days_old' and store it with the record. Then that number is available throughout the program in all templates -- and can be used to display any graphic based on age along with 'updated' etc.

The reason I'm waiting for the next release is that a larger portion of the code will be finalized, so hopefully future upgrades will require less modification.

As time goes on, there are going to be as many, if not more solutions for LinkSQL than for Links 2.0 -- the reason being it's so much easier to do MORE with SQL.

One thing you _HAVE_to realize, is that many of these things will have to be coded by you. There _are_ things Alex can make parameters to the program -- span pages in COOL is one of them -- but there are others that are variable from one site to another.

At the most basic, you can get a site up and running by editing the config file. That's it.

Then you can customize the templates.

Then you can make changes to the database.

Then you can start tweaking the code to do things YOUR way.

But these are things YOU have to do. If you can't do them, there are programmers for hire who can.

Rather than complain about what LinkSQL isn't doing, how about making SPECIFIC suggestions on how to do it -- and why. Bug reports and problems should always be reported.

I asked for a way to change sort order, and gave an idea how it could be done -- and Alex worked it in.

The problems with Import have been defined, and Alex is working on it -- but Install is a really difficult thing because every site is just a little different. How many companies use InstallShield's installation for Windows because of how many things have to be taken into account? Have you ever seen a CPAN distributed archive compile? It tests for one thing after another, makes decisions at every step and only 95% of the time gets it right. If you've done non-standard things to your system to have to do more in the way of passing and overriding parameters -- but that's life.

I think sometimes people expect too much of Alex. Yes -- Alex needs to centralize some things -- because it's his distribution. But other things can be worked on by people here.

The group effort on sharing is just starting here.

Give it time. Most of the support in the Links 2.0 area is not from Alex -- it's by other users who have figured things out. The same is here --

If you have a question -- that affects your site -- Alex answers Email. Don't forget that.

I would know about 2.0..never used it.

I have done the 3 level new mods if you need it. Thought I posted it to the board, guess not.

Chris

Hello Digital Concepts!

Sorry, I do not know your name. Have you checked it out how long the new.html and the day in each build it up? Lets say if you had a hundred or a few hundred links incoming how long would that be, on each day? Is it not ridiculous situation that a user comes and complains after buying a product that it produces a few megabytes of a page.

Hello Mr. Pataki!

What Digital Concepts said, I beleive it should be the basic. It should have been in there. I also feel for some things that many things are also really basic and also should be in there.

Further, you say everyone expects more of Alex. Thats not true. This discussions are a result of a need and situation. If things are not going in the right way, a situation is provoked. But please do not debat on such english sentences of mine, I may not be able to convey the right thing.

I mean, when I buy a software, I expect some kind of basic import-export routines in there that the program understands during the exports and also imports. Am I expecting too much or is there a feeling that the expectation MUST be less for a price of $450?

Further, more the program is user friendly, more are the features, more support it gives to the webmasters needs MORE USERS/BUYERS IT DRAWS.

I have received THREE EMAILS from people who watched the kind of problems I am passing through. They have a similar guess that thaey will also have absolutely similar problems and refrain from buying. They thing the price is a bit more in terms of the features it offers and they knew better programs which were more expensive but more comforts.

I did not agree with them at this point. I am convinced that the price is correct and what Alex has done is wonderful. I am also sure that these people are looking at this thread also I will always say this that Links SQL is a very good product and there are serious reasons of saying so regardles of my problems. It is the intellect / Concept that is important to dicsuss here.

Somehow, people are used or seasoned to expecting less in the perl world, a known fact. Comparing to all the features Windows 98 or Win NT has to offer me, and its price reagarding to Links SQL, Windows NT should costs me a Million.

A software is an attraction to buy for a webmaster based on its features. As a matter of fact in all fields. A radio or a television for that matter. What features convinces the client. Why should that be the most attractive thing to buy.

TEMPLATES. An extra-ordinary feature. I can talk to my friends how it works. Excellent feature of Links SQL. Can I talk the same of Category pop up list? The kilometer long one that i have for 4600 categories?

DYNAMIC. Build on-the-fly the dynamic feature. Can I talk how good it is without knowing it? Where is it written?

INSTANT AVAILABILITY OF FIELD TAGS. Great.
<%If Problems%>
<%Nightmares%>
<%endif%>
I can talk so wonderful about them. They are so easy to use as in the example above.

But my dear friends : What about this nightmares I have to handle 200 links submissions and 4600 categories:

-Kilometer long category listing for 4600 categories.
-No real Multiple category support but only an additional category.
-Validation routine build 200 kilobyte for ten links per page
-Could be one and a half Megabyte long New/Cool pages.
-Cannot import/export without nightmares.
-Cannot build with more than one to two thousand categories.
-More i can also list down.

This above ARE NO MODS OR EXTRA COUSTOM EXPECTIONS.

Links SQL has one greatest attraction of using MySQL that one can use with medium size directories. I am sure it is going to be a star program in the year 2000 and beleive and have trust and faith in Alex, a great programmer, to get the program developing in the right way in terms of the design value in many areas discussed above. I see his power in the codes and the concept and hope to see them continue.

As I said in another message, I'm really tired of the complaints. It seems people just come here to vent their frustrations.

All your problems could have been solved by hiring a programmer to fix the things for YOU, your way.

There is no other program out there, so why expect perfection for everyone from this one?

I'm just glad this program was released -- and not kept underwraps until it was completely finished. I'd be scrambling to find something rather than building my site.

Each website is a custom venture. Software is not plug-n-play. You have to put a lot of work into it, and if there is something that is missing, and the programmer can't - or won't - do it for you then you need to hire someone else to do it -- or do it yourself.

I'm frustrated in some ways too. But I didn't invest $5,000 into a program I needed to have up and running yesterday. I invested less than $500 in version 1.0 code that I knew I could either modify myself or have someone else modify if it didn't do what I needed. The $500 was to save me the time of starting from scratch to build my site. And it did more than that.

I've been in computers since 1976. If you expect out-of-the-box readiness from software you are just in the wrong business. Micro$oft started that by distributing executable-only code. People were forced to think it had to run out of the box. That ain't the way it is. This is all SOURCE CODE -- if you don't like it -- CHANGE IT! That's why you have SOURCE CODE. 90% of the work is done -- you have to do the other 10%


I have 100+ hours in my templates alone. Should I have expected them to be ready for my site? I have to modify Jump.cgi every release so it works the way I need it to.

Now I'm getting caught up in this. I'm griping about the griping. I'm just really tired of it all.

It doesn't do anything constructive, and it keeps people from posting, sharing and helping to develop the product.

Yes. I think that's a correct conecpt for paid version. Different web sites got some different requirments. I asked some programmers to do the modifications for me. This is how I think it should work.

------------------
Bear EveryWhere