Directory scripts & their load times vs Google Caffeine

Recently we've seen loads of threads discussing the various scripts available, and how each is suited for different niches.

And now with the New year coming up, and Google ready to roll out Caffeine, and the possibility that Google just might consider site load times for indexing... i just went around checking out the load times of the more popular scripts.

Seems phpLd 4.0, and eSyndiCat 2.3 fare well enough, ... more here =>

Regards,
M.

 

Totally invalid.

Load times are more than just the script and most importantly it's the hardware behind the script. You can have the best code in the world but host your website of the slowest server.

 

Yes, I am totally agree with above statement...the hosting provider will give the huge effect....

 

Agreed.

I get such a kick out of reading the drivel on DP.

 

Then you must love the sites 4 sale, templates 4 sale and the freebies section forums at DP. Always good for a laugh.

 

Thank you for include my script in the article.

However to get the real and ideal comparison, it should better to put them all script in the same environment. It should be the same webhosting or same pc if you do localhost testing. Then put the same demo data, for example 1000 categories and 100,000 links.

Some scripts like mine (linkenginepro) and indexu also has paging caching to minimize the load time (mostly caused by mysql). Then you can also compare when page caching is enable.

If you do this, this would be fair and become more useful for us.

 

i did anticipate a degree of criticism here, but its coming from the strangest of corners here!

I did NOT create a thread of "best script" , there already a ton of them floating around, but i moved away from personally biased threads to posting facts!

Now being a coder myself, I know it takes passion to code & undoubtedly takes good hours to put together a quality script, I'm not putting judgment on the script per se, just a tiny but important aspect of it!

And NO I did NOT recommend web hosting to any Script providers, that is undoubtedly their own choice! and I am checking the online DEMO put out by respective scripts, which is the selling point of all scripts online (commercial or free). The people who use those scripts will probably have the similar kind of set up! Their internal settings again chosen and implemented by their own programmers.

We've (phpLD fans/ also Ex-phpLD fans) have always cribbed about how slow the script was, with phpLD 2.1.2 recieving the slowest script ever award! If I correctly remember even 3.3 and server load issues. It is an aspect disussed long before Cutts even mentioned it. And an important issue which script writters should address.

As programmers we're taught memory managment & load times (especially for web sites) as the key issues to be looked into.

the internet today is talking about load times again, ... yes coz of g**g*le!

Regards,
M.

EDIT: am appalled to see a programmer contradict me on this!

 

So you're appalled because programmers aren't cookie cutters like most scripts out there?

Now me being a programmer(real world, not just internet) I am appalled at your train of thought, especially since you are calling yourself a programmer.

 

haha .. speaking of programmer matter, how many of you are programmers here and how many of you develop directory script

What is the purpose of comparing the page load of demo site? It doesn't represent the script quality or loading page of the script. Because you added the external factor, the webhosting (spec and internet connection).

 

LinkEnginePro, you are on the same page as everyone else in this thread with the exception of the OP.

It's funny how msolution gets offended when others who have their own scripts state the obvious. I mean c'mon....

 

you would be surprised to find...

 

I am a programmer in the real world too An0n!

and if you use Google,(which i know you dont like, perhaps thats the reason your so in a "burn the OP at the stake" mode/ mood) you would find people talking about load times.

And for the obvious i just happen to test the load time of various directory scripts! ... And am NOT comparing the script per se,.. am repeating that again!

Also I am neither affiliated nor show affiliation to any script,... till last year , i think we all agree phpLd was the famous one, and this,
perhaps coming year is the year for newer scripts, especially eSyndiCat which i like too! ( if phpLd team doesn't get its house in order)

haven't checked other scripts, so really cant comment on them.
I do like the flash module running on the home page of LEP, its a good looking admin panel you have.

does writing a directory script make you a programmer, ... the logic stands vague in itself!

Again its a forum post, you always have an option of moving on....
and if you feel it does not suit your best interest, I could surely remove your mention from there...

And its how you define quality!
"code is poetry" - Wordpress.com - Every line has to be in rythm

my personal being;
"code is like a good dish" - every ingredient has to be right!

again, the purpose of this thread is not "compare scripts", but to discuss a factor which just might affect the on site SEO of a site! And this in a consumers perspective and not a programmers perspective! (~ it is was a programmers perspective, i'd throw in a advanced cache module for all the scripts listed above!) ... but im not here for kudos today!

M.

 

yes the support seems to slow, or were you talking ...

(just messing with ya)

 

You obviously cannot take criticism. We are not trying to "burn the OP at the stake" we are just pointing out your method of testing is flawed.

I think your head is in the right place testing the scripts but it's far from accurate unless all the scripts are on the same environment. Now, if you place all the scripts on the same server then do your test again it would be a lot more accurate.

 

afcourse not, it is an open forum, we are here to discuss, but if we get into flame throwing rather than discussing the issue! ... its no use, then the "is directory helpful", & "make a directory list" threads are more apt, which is why this forum is so dead!

now coming back to the issue at hand, you would surely agree for example if i want to buy a car, i will rather read user reviews, and reviews put out by auto magazines, rather than the lab test data which the company puts out! coz im not going to run the car in the lab, but on the real road!

similarly if i as a consumer want to buy your script, i will come to your site, test your demo script, if its nice, you have a sale, else i move on to the next to test that out.... not going to a science lab and relying on test data! An average directory script user will put it up on shared hosting, or at best a VPS with more than a half a dozen of his own sites. And here lab results will surely not apply nor be of any use!

M.

 

Load times differ by;
- the script,
- theme you used,
- the server hardware,
- server bandwidth,
- the location of the server (this might not effect the google caffeine as they have spiders in the same country of your script)

So, the script is only one factor.

 

agreed, which is what i've mentioned in my blog!

and again, it is the only factor which script writers have control of,
and saying other factors are not constant, doesn't seem to solve the problem!
in the real world, other factors will never be constant!

M.

 

Wow! pretty interesting thread we got here, keep it up.

 

Nobody is flaming. You really do seem to have taken offense to criticism. That's a shame on your end.

They test-run those vehicles on the same tracks, ala the same 'environment' which we have been trying to explain to you, but you just seem to fail to comprehend what we are telling you.

There are more programmers in this thread than normal users, so we could really go without the whole analogy bit.

This is purely opinion based on a singular level. You are making an assumption based on how something runs in an individual environment where it was installed. You cannot 'bench' anything like this. This is what we've been trying to tell from the jump-start.

 

read ur first 2 post An0n!

easier to explain there,....

read my last post, ... you really dont expect me to believe that the hardware is all that takes to make a site fast, and the script has no or negligible value .... especially when i quoted you as saying "phpLd is slow"... i am a user... i know older versions were slow... i dont shy away from saying that!

you been trying to say "Inadequate data", i get that,...

my point being, the average user is not a cooperate - an owned server with unique IP, but an average guy with a VPS, or perhaps with shared hosting,.... there by the end result on averages wont be too different!

repeatng myself: