That's the PHP templates- they automate the necessary table-bookkeeping so that things expand and contract elegantly.

My site uses a "Portal" version of the PHPBB, also with MySQL on the back end, but I don't get a lot of traffic... ops:

Huh. if PHP does that, then my vote is for PHP. Just looks tidier.

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

Well, I don't think the site is bad at all. Maybe a little cluttered but that's because there's so much on it. Besides clutter has a good homey feel.

I hate frames, frames that stay at the top of the screen in particular. Never use those. Ironically, it might be just what you need. If you put a frame at the top with the title and links in it, then you could add another verticle table under that and viola, more room. Or maybe stick with two tables and have the main table wider but then it would be on the left. That might not be too good. OK, how about putting the ad table on the left and the main table starting to the right of that. Yeah, there ya go. Infact just put a table at the top with the title and links in it and skip frames all together. I think that would work.

And always use notepad to make your site. No need to have a bunch of weird tags all over the place from some oddball website maker.

My 2¢.

__________________
You're a coward and a liar and a thOOF - Bart Sibrel

Nineteen feet?! How far away from that monster do you have to sit?

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2009 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

Heh. I almost did that, too. Blasted Imperial System...

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

I'd agree. The best sites (in my opinion) have the main page fit on one page.

This is my site- www.scotsons-shack.com I just use a realy simple design- works well. I'm thinking of swithcing to php soon (I"m sick of adding links to whats new, index- etc..)

__________________
If this writing is blue you're going too fast!

<sarc>I set at the other end of my house </sarc>


so whats the symbol for inch then? I'm not got with US mesurments I use the metrics system in real life.
PS: what is the difference between inch, feet, mile,...

__________________
GCS/S d(+) s+:+ a--- C++(+++)>$ W+++>$ L>+ M+>++ w++ P+>++ tv@ PS b+ DI+ G e-> h! r-- !z+

~Jorge Schrauwen

Double prime: "

short, medium, long

Post Corrected

Thanx for the info

__________________
GCS/S d(+) s+:+ a--- C++(+++)>$ W+++>$ L>+ M+>++ w++ P+>++ tv@ PS b+ DI+ G e-> h! r-- !z+

~Jorge Schrauwen

Don't laugh, but I still have a computer that will only go to 800x600. And I'm on a dial-up modem where I average 1k. Surely I'm not the only BA reader in the stone age, so hopefully the new design will be viewable and downloadable for us. (And ditto to no frames!)

OK, some interesting stuff so far. Comments:

1) Frames are the work of the devil, so no, I won't be using them. I loathe frames.

2) I would prefer not to go to all php-based page serving, mostly because this site is done in HTML, and has tens of thousands of hardcoded links from other sites, pointing to existing pages. To go to php pages, I would have to create all the *.php pages, then I would need to have meta-redirects from all the old pages to maintain those incoming links. I am not a web designer, so I don't know if there is some hack to do this more easily (besides some weird parsing in the .htaccess file which I have never been able to get to work).

3) Just so people know, every page on the main site uses server-side includes. The top, menu, right hand side, bottom, and text links on each page are all saved in separate files, and parsed on the fly when a page is called. So I don't need anything fancy to do that.

4) I will go with 750 pixels wide, hardcoded. I am willing to make some sacrifices for people with older machines, or who don't know any better... but I will only go so far. I think 750 pixels is a reasonable thing to do.

Keep 'em coming! And thanks. The woman who is thinking about doing the redesign is reading this thread, too (hi Melissa!).

__________________
Phil Plait
The Bad Astronomer
http://www.badastronomy.com
badastro@badastronomy.com

I don't know if this is the sort of suggestion you want...

...but a really nice feature in any discussion is a clear indication of what messages is being replied to, and what replies exist for another message.

In the EvCforum, which I also inhabit, along the bottom of each post there is a small set of links, giving message numbers and author, along these lines:

• This post is a reply to message #45 by name
• Replies to this message: #56 by name1, #59 by name2, #75 by name3

Each message number is a link to the corresponding message. This helps enormously for navigating a thread.

Cheers -- Sylas

I can understand the need to continue to redirect incoming links, but i'm pretty sure some 1337 haxing in a .htaccess file will be able to redirect them for you. I'm sure there's many experienced webdevelopers who will be able to help you out.

I would be hesitant to keep a simple HTML based design just because of incoming links - i'm sure it can be worked around. For all the major incoming links (on the current site), you can set up redirects to their new pages, and for obscure ones, redirect them to a site-map page or something so they don't get a 404 error.

A php/mysql based design will set you up for long into the future, and will be much more customisable in the long run. Being able to administer it, add content remotely etc, will be much more convenient for you, i'm sure.

I used phpwcms as the CMS for my Australian amateur astronomy site, IceInSpace.

Good luck with the new design, my preference is for clean and simple.

__________________
Mike
. mikesalway.com.au - Astronomy and Photography by Mike Salway
. IceInSpace - The Australian Amateur Astronomy Community
. My Bio | My Jupiter 2007 Gallery | My Image Gallery

12 inches to a foot.
5280 feet to a mile.

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2009 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

It's a simple matter, really- either with a redirect in the header, or an on load location href change in the body. I do the former for my own site, and didn't have to worry about anyone else changing their links.

My website gets forty rods to the Hogshead, and that's the way I likes it!

There are some programmatic ways of working around things- for instance, loading the contents of a page if called in PHP, or simply adding links in a php portal framework to the pages. As for old dead links, you can still keep the old structure, add the links to the Portal framework, and have a redirect from the old link site to the new php main page. It's even easier if your current menu is not a hardcoded part of the page...
It's not the layout- it's the management. The management through PHPBB of a portal layout, for instance, is much simpler than even recoding an SSI, added to which the layout can be changed rapidly to accomodate new information or features you want to incorporate without cripping the rest of the site. Additionally, you can create elements for special permission groups (just include the "new here" brick for non-logged-in users, for instance), and customize the site information and display. It's a lot more than simply layout.

My PC is 2.5 yrs old w/ Windows XP; my company PCs (XP, too) are all set to a 800x600 default, though you can change it. I choose to keep both my PCs at 800x600--I want to keep my good eyesight--it's too much of a strain to work on a higher all day. From another forum, over 2 years 50.42% use 800x600, 25.4% use 1024x768 and 6.89% use 1280x1024 (ouch)...forget the others...somebody is using a dinosaur.

15" mostly run at 800x600 although 1024x768
17" runs best at 1024x768
19" runs best at 1280x1024
21" runs best at... hmmz i forgot

but the resulution goes up with the screen size, keeking every thing the same size, just more room to place your crap

and yes apache with mod_rewrite could simple rewrite all your old url + make some nice shurtcuts

http://www.badastronomy.com/news/title -> http://www.badastronomy.com/newe.php?tille=xxx is a simple example

__________________
GCS/S d(+) s+:+ a--- C++(+++)>$ W+++>$ L>+ M+>++ w++ P+>++ tv@ PS b+ DI+ G e-> h! r-- !z+

~Jorge Schrauwen

We all have 17" w/ 800x600 screens and 1024x768 is too small. I'm on the phone with my tech person, and though some programs we have are made for 1024X768 we'd be squinting all day and they say it's not enough difference to the processor to make us suffer. It's not a big deal to scroll and use the arrow/end keys, rather than squint. I don't know, I don't have any problems with it.

Squint? At 1024 x 768?? Man, I guess I got raised on Macs, and never bothered thinking about it- low resolutions make me queasy, as I'd have to flex my neck left to right to read a sentence, and with all the hours I spend in front of a computer, that would really add up. I try and keep mine at 1280 x 1024 if I can... and only go lower when somebody asks me to. Nicely.

There are other issues with having redirects. My pages are all ranked by Google, and this site is ranked pretty highly. I am not sure that a new page, redirected from an old one, will have the same ranking, and this is a very important issure. I'll look into it myself, but I am still leaning towards standard HTML pages, or at least static pages that have html as their suffix.

Well, the linking wouldn't die- a redirect doesn't kill that, as Google is ranked on how many other sites link to a page. A redirect from that page wouldn't really damage it, as long as Google's own indexing was supplemented with page content. Some indication of what the site is about on the redirect page. And check to see if the Google ranking is for the site in general, or a specific page on the site...

edit: Just checked, and about 1,710 links (non-repeating) point to your main site "www.badastronomy.com" with no page reference - compare that to www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/index.html with 87 links, and many of those from within the site itself... check that, most of those - probably around 90%. As long as your main page still had indexable information for 'bots, it should come out okay no matter how you change your site...

I would like to comment on number 4, I seriously think you should stray away from phpBB because IPB is better and easier. With 2.1 under devolopement its a whole new ballgame! Dude, I could seriously buy the $200 IPB license because I have nothing better to do with my money and I would love to see phpBB bite the dust. Please for the love for god check the site out.

http://invisionboard.com/

__________________
Same old Bad Astro forum so many years gone... and I wouldn't have it any other way!

Just curious: why the demonization of PhpBB? And why kill the open source, which would not require COTS code to update or modify?

And looking at it- $185 for purchase, $275 to keep the copyright from being prominent everywhere, $50 for blog support, $65 for gallery...
It adds up pretty quick...

Phil,

You might be able to use php without renaming all of your files with .php extensions. Since you're already able to parse your header etc. it means your server is already set up to process .html files as if they are scripts. In your case you're using "server side includes" which ordinarily need an .shtml file extension, but since it appears to be working with an .html extension you might be able to use php the same way.

Does any of that make sense?

I would try making a simple php script and name it with a .html extension. If the server processes the php code then you will be able to take advantage of php.

Save the following as phptest.html, upload it to your server, and open it in your browser. If it displays the date then you know php will work for you even with an .html extention.

Phpbb is a good forum, but since it is so popular it is a bigger target for hackers. Sort of like how Windows is a bigger target than Linux.

The creators of phpbb are quick to release fixes for security holes but updating a phpbb is a pain in the butt, especially if you have installed custom mods. Updates tend to break mods which means you have to manually reinstall them (which means modifying the source code). Lately it seems like there has been an update for phpbb every 2 weeks and it has become a real chore to keep up with them.

Phpbb ver. 3 (when it finally gets released) should make updates much easier, or so I've heard.

I'm pretty sure there's an option in your .htaccess file (for redirects) to tell the search bots that it's a permanent redirect. I don't know if that means googlebot will do.. it's worth finding out though.

In any case, the old links will still be ranked high, and on your new site once it gets enough links to it, and add to that the bots that trawl through your site, the new pages will get ranked highly too.

A lot of people that link to your site probably read your site too, or the forums, so when you go to the new design you could simply request that they update any links to their new locations. It won't get all of them, but it would get a fair amount i'm sure.

__________________
Mike
. mikesalway.com.au - Astronomy and Photography by Mike Salway
. IceInSpace - The Australian Amateur Astronomy Community
. My Bio | My Jupiter 2007 Gallery | My Image Gallery

Page rank is different than links coming in. It is an assignment of how "important" a page is, on a log scale from 0 to 10. Try a search on the term and you'll see.

LunarOrbit I already know that won't work: I've tried variations on that theme when I added textlinks to my site. My web host does not want me to parse all HTML pages as php scripts because of the load on the server. If I go to a dedicated server, I guess that won't be a problem though.

Google penalises for re-directs. That way you don't have a keyword loaded page linking to another (real) page.

__________________
If this writing is blue you're going too fast!