Technicopedia

[Jonfensu]

Wow, that was fast! That's right, 3 models with dual rear wheels (and also an extra diff on 8258), plus the 3rd part tires and black chassis of 41999. I don't count 42006 because the PF are per instructions so it is not a mod.

Hehe.

Seems like I missed your previous sentence "all together" .

Apart from these sets (visibly modified). Are there others internally modified?.

​Oh, and Where's my prize?

Edited May 11, 2016 by Jonfensu

[Blakbird]

Apart from these sets (visibly modified). Are there others internally modified?.

As a rule, I don't modify official sets. The cases listed are the only I can think of where I've done it. If you can find one that I didn't remember, then you are a bigger fan of Technicopedia than I am.

​Oh, and Where's my prize?

Your prize is pride.

[Lego Nerd]

Hey Blakbird, technicopedia.com is giving the 403 forbidden error message when I visit it.

I hope it gets back online, because it's one of my favorite sites, and I've shared it with friends. Thanks for all the hard work you've done to make it.

[Blakbird]

Hey Blakbird, technicopedia.com is giving the 403 forbidden error message when I visit it.

I am over my bandwidth limit for the month. I am pretty surprised by this because I have 100Gb allowed and my site is just text files and pictures.

[schraubedrin]

At least i can attest for myself that since i've got to know technicopedia i'm using it excessively. And that was at the beginning of this month.

I don't think it was just me, but maybe the site somehow got more popularity in the recent time?

[Blakbird]

At least i can attest for myself that since i've got to know technicopedia i'm using it excessively. And that was at the beginning of this month.

I don't think it was just me, but maybe the site somehow got more popularity in the recent time?

The site always gets a lot of attention when I post updates. Earlier this month I was getting more than 64000 visits per day.

[roppie11]

I am over my bandwidth limit for the month. I am pretty surprised by this because I have 100Gb allowed and my site is just text files and pictures.

the month. So will it be online again at 1st june?

100gb does somehow not sound like a lot, (i have 10x that much on my laptop) but i'm the opposit of experts about sites building etc. :laugh:

[Blakbird]

the month. So will it be online again at 1st june?

100gb does somehow not sound like a lot, (i have 10x that much on my laptop) but i'm the opposit of experts about sites building etc. :laugh:

Yes, it will be back up on June 1.

100Gb is not a lot of storage, but it is a lot of bandwidth. The files for the entire web site consume about 2.3Gb of space. The fact that I am going through 100Gb of bandwidth implies that people are not just coming for a casual look, but actually reading a substantial portion of the site.

There are some oddities in the stats like the fact that more than 6% of my traffic is coming from http://nemzetiborze.hu, a Hungarian site for classified ads.

[legolijntje]

Maybe you can try to find a hosting company with more or unlimited bandwidth?

I know a few companies with hosting plans here in The Netherlands which have unlimited bandwidth and are far from expensive (think ~€5-€15) or have more than 100gb a month a few euros (a month).

[Blakbird]

Maybe you can try to find a hosting company with more or unlimited bandwidth?

I know a few companies with hosting plans here in The Netherlands which have unlimited bandwidth and are far from expensive (think ~€5-€15) or have more than 100gb a month a few euros (a month).

I have thought about it a few times. In my experience "unlimited" never really means unlimited if you look at the fine print. There is always a catch. The hosting service I use is owned and operated by a friend of mine from my rocketry hobby which makes it convenient when I have to deal with the occasional problem.

I have a feeling that a significant percentage of my bandwidth goes not to people using my site, but to people who are linking to my pictures and/or animations for their blogs or advertising.

[roppie11]

I have thought about it a few times. In my experience "unlimited" never really means unlimited if you look at the fine print. There is always a catch. The hosting service I use is owned and operated by a friend of mine from my rocketry hobby which makes it convenient when I have to deal with the occasional problem.

I have a feeling that a significant percentage of my bandwidth goes not to people using my site, but to people who are linking to my pictures and/or animations for their blogs or advertising.

so if i use picture from your site and put it as an image here, i use some bandwith?

(deleted technicopedia logo)

Edited May 24, 2016 by roppie11

[Blakbird]

so if i use picture from your site and put it as an image here, i use some bandwith?

Exactly. Every time someone reads this page of the topic, the server will call for a copy of that file. That could be thousands of times. Ideally if someone wanted to use a picture from my site they would make a copy and host it on their own site. Even better, they would also attribute it to me. There was once an auto blog that used one of my gear animations by just calling it from my site. They used my entire bandwidth in 20 minutes and did not even acknowledge that I was the creator of the image.

That's just the Internet. Not much I can do about it.

[fatum]

Try installing a hot linking script which shows a low bandwidth image saying that pictures are available when visiting the site or something like that.

This way you avoid other sites eating up your bandwidth and encourages people to either host the images themselves somewhere (watermark them) or link to the page containing the image.

[Blakbird]

Try installing a hot linking script which shows a low bandwidth image saying that pictures are available when visiting the site or something like that.

This way you avoid other sites eating up your bandwidth and encourages people to either host the images themselves somewhere (watermark them) or link to the page containing the image.

Sounds great but I have no idea how to do that. Can you point me to any references?

[fatum]

A good example of an anti hotlinking method can be found here: http://www.javascriptkit.com/howto/htaccess10.shtml

A CDN service (content delivery network) is also an option. If you're using wordpress, you can find more info here: http://www.wpexplorer.com/free-cdn-services-for-wordpress/

Hope that helps.

[Lego Nerd]

One temporary workaround is to use archive.org and look at shapshots of technicopedia.com . It doesn't have a snapshot of the most recent updates, nor does it have all the pictures, but the technic fundamentals page was complete.

[a_h_adl]

The top image of each year is taking way more than any individual set pictures to load. At the moment Technicopedia is not available to check it but surely that's because of it's huge file size and if you compress the top image (and still it will be high-quality because of its high resolution) you will save a lot of bandwidth each month for sure. Same goes to the animations. I'm not sure it you've tried to optimized them or not but if you haven't, it definitely worth a try.

[legolijntje]

A good example of an anti hotlinking method can be found here: http://www.javascrip...taccess10.shtml

A CDN service (content delivery network) is also an option. If you're using wordpress, you can find more info here: http://www.wpexplore...-for-wordpress/

Hope that helps.

:laugh: He's certainly not using Wordpress.

Not that there's anything wrong with using it or not, for some reason I just found it funny that's he's basically as far away from any CMS as possible

I have thought about it a few times. In my experience "unlimited" never really means unlimited if you look at the fine print. There is always a catch. The hosting service I use is owned and operated by a friend of mine from my rocketry hobby which makes it convenient when I have to deal with the occasional problem.

I have a feeling that a significant percentage of my bandwidth goes not to people using my site, but to people who are linking to my pictures and/or animations for their blogs or advertising.

I know of a webhosing company which is very trustworthy. Family of me have been using it for like 20 years or so now and almost never had any problems. They have a €9,95 a month package with real unlimitded bandwith (although limited at 100.000 reqeusts a week) and support for a whole lot of technologies and whatever (in case you ever want to 'upgrade' the website). Maybe there are equivalent packages in the US? But, I also can imagine that it's easy that a friend is hosting your website.

Ah well, I'm getting off-topic here I guess.

[fatum]

:laugh: He's certainly not using Wordpress.

Not that there's anything wrong with using it or not, for some reason I just found it funny that's he's basically as far away from any CMS as possible

I hadn't seen the site yet so I didn't know

I know of a webhosing company which is very trustworthy. Family of me have been using it for like 20 years or so now and almost never had any problems. They have a €9,95 a month package with real unlimitded bandwith (although limited at 100.000 reqeusts a week) and support for a whole lot of technologies and whatever (in case you ever want to 'upgrade' the website). Maybe there are equivalent packages in the US? But, I also can imagine that it's easy that a friend is hosting your website.

100.000 request a week probably won't be enough seeing that he had 64.000 visits per day at one point.

[zux]

I cannot check right now, well, as website is unavailable at the moment. But if I remember correctly, pages for each models contain pictures in their original size just shrinked (not resized) to fit into to page layout. This might be consuming substantial amount of bandwidth. I like the detailing available with the pictures, however it would be wiser to use resized picture on a page and allow full sized picture to open on click.

[fatum]

You could use a lightbox script for that: http://lokeshdhakar.com/projects/lightbox2/

[legolijntje]

You could use a lightbox script for that: http://lokeshdhakar....ects/lightbox2/

A lightbox script doesn't make the image smaller. You still have to provide your own thumgnails though.

[fatum]

A lightbox script doesn't make the image smaller. You still have to provide your own thumgnails though.

True, but it makes it easier to use thuimbnails. As for creating them, you can do a batch resize with irfanview.

[Blakbird]

The top image of each year is taking way more than any individual set pictures to load. At the moment Technicopedia is not available to check it but surely that's because of it's huge file size and if you compress the top image (and still it will be high-quality because of its high resolution) you will save a lot of bandwidth each month for sure. Same goes to the animations. I'm not sure it you've tried to optimized them or not but if you haven't, it definitely worth a try.

The annual images are not very large. They are only 800 pixels. You only get the hi res version if you click on it. The animations are already completely optimized. None of the files are very large size.

I cannot check right now, well, as website is unavailable at the moment. But if I remember correctly, pages for each models contain pictures in their original size just shrinked (not resized) to fit into to page layout. This might be consuming substantial amount of bandwidth. I like the detailing available with the pictures, however it would be wiser to use resized picture on a page and allow full sized picture to open on click.

I don't shrink pictures in the browser; I always resize the images to 400 pixels. The big picture is only available after clicking, and even then is not very large.

The problem is not the content of my site but the traffic. With an average of 30000+ visits per day, I am going to have trouble even if the files are small. I guess I should try to be less popular.

[Erik Leppen]

I am over my bandwidth limit for the month. I am pretty surprised by this because I have 100Gb allowed and my site is just text files and pictures.

And animations.

I think a lot of the bandwidth is going to the 360-degree rotating animated computer images. Those have a lot of frames, and because they're probably crisp, they might compress badly.

At least, most of the page's loading time goes to them. And to be honest, I'd rather see them behind a link, because most of the time I don't care about them, and they slow down the loading of the page a lot. Putting them behind a link will also reduce the number of views to only those people who bother clicking on that link.

Edit: I now just read the other replies. I see you already took care of this. Maybe the problem is somewhere else. Are people hotlinking your images? Do you have some sort of download counters on your images, so you can see which ones are viewed the most, and, hence, which ones generate the most traffic.

Edited May 26, 2016 by Erik Leppen