We’re back

For over a week, BCC has been struggling with the reality that we had gotten too big for our britches. Throw in a DoS attack, et voila: server trouble. Unlike normal websites, an increase in traffic does not correlate to an increase in income. The permanent contributors foot the bill for the site. So our choice was to fork over some serious coin or go to wordpress.com. We opted for the latter, which with some technical wizardry was sufficiently adaptable to work for us. Plus we have some new features.

First a big shout-out to Cynthia, who sacrificed much for the technical fruits. Also thanks to Susan M., who gave us some sweet css consultation.

We should be back to business as usual. Cheers!

Comments

  1. Kevin Barney says:

    Thanks to those who worked so hard to make this happen, especially given that I don’t have the first clue how these things even work.

  2. Cynthia L. says:
  3. It kind of makes me feel bad for hopping on the bandwagon but that is the goal, right? Thanks for allowing some random people to come and get a religious/intellectual/humorous fix on a regular basis, it really does mean a lot.

  4. Cynthia L. says:

    Or, if you prefer, “It’s alive!!!”

  5. So I guess it is now “just another wordpress blog.”

    sweet, now, if I so choose, I can be notified of follow-up comments via email

  6. MikeInWeHo says:

    Looks good, but how do I embed a link now?
    Cynthia L figured it out, but I can’t.

    Getting BCC spiffed up was probably like this:

    (Make it to the end…..”This house is clean!”)

  7. Umm, where’s the link to the Zeitcasts?

  8. Well, if you want to lighten your load, feel free to send Kevin Barney my way. I never get tired of his jokes.

  9. Looks great.

  10. Traffic is one of those problems that we are happy to deal with. Thanks to everyone who makes bcc great, contributors, whether post writers or commenters.

  11. Just curious what you were running on before WordPress…

  12. Clean Cut, we were using wordpress, but on our own server space. We are now being hosted by wordpress.com.

  13. Sounds fishy to me. I’m guessing y’all just shirked your collective blogging duties for a week to go skiing.

  14. Cynthia L. says:

    #6–Mike, LOL! You know, that is remarkably accurate!

    To make the link invisible, I used (A HREF=”link”)text here(/A) tags. (change the parentheses to greater-than/less-than signs) Hope that helps.

  15. John Hamer says:

    Very happy to be back. Thanks for all your work, folks.

  16. “We’re back, baby!” – Jon Stewart

    <i?The permanent contributors foot the bill for the site.

    So what’s all this garbage about Steve getting filthy lucre from blogging? Maybe he’s holding out on the rest of you gals and guys.

  17. I’m glad y’all are back, but as witnessed above, I miss the tag helpers. Will those be coming back, J?

  18. Unfortunately, comment tag buttons won’t be back while we are hosted here. And sorry about the comments on this post, the time stamp on some of them was a bit off.

  19. Ha! I knew there was a reason that Steve asked me if I wanted to be a contributor. And that it didn’t have anything to do with my having anything worth saying.

    (Thanks to all who do contribute to this site, despite my periodic drive-by snarkiness.)

  20. Do you still have to pay some money to WordPress to run this thing like this on wordpress.com or is there a way to do it for free? I know they had some financial options in the past but it’s been awhile since I’ve looked into it …

  21. Weird, it bumped my comment back so it would be with my other one …

  22. Glad to see you back. I was never happy with wordpress.com, I hope it works out for you.

    Just out of curiosity, how much storage space and bandwidth does BCC consume?

  23. Kari, it’s a lot. A lot a lot. Thousands of posts with zillions of comments. We just got unwieldy.

  24. Kari, if BCC is roughly comparable to T&S, there are probably 4-6,000 posts and maybe 100-200,000 comments (depending on how you count spam in that) in the archives.

    Unless there is a lot of media, that is only 100-200MB or so of storage space, because words are small things. Bandwidth is harder to guess at, as it depends on traffic, how many pictures or other media you transfer, and how you deal with robots and so forth. But probably a guess for BCC would be 1-2 GB a day.

    T&S currently has about 4200 public posts, 144,000 (largely non-spam) comments, and a little over a GB a day in bandwitdh.

  25. Steve Evans says:

    Frank, those are fair guesses. BCC uses a lot of bandwidth.

  26. I’m glad to see you all are back up and running. But wasn’t this problem foretold not many months ago?

  27. Darn you, PBR#10!!! [shakes fist at sky]

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 9,828 other followers