Is this thing on?

The most maddening thing, of course, is that during the Quiet Times, my traffic went up about twelve percent. Obviously I should post less.

So why start again? Well, for one thing, the old database, with seven thousand and odd items, was getting cranky. For another, it’s not like anything is missing: all the old posts are still archived and are available at their original URLs. And the last time I ran an export of said database, it clipped off at the 18-MB point for some reason, meaning that if I reimported it, I’d have to port over a couple months’ worth of entries anyway, and I’ve already put enough work into this thing.

However, my string of consecutive days with posts remains intact. (It’s at 2,266, if anyone cares, and why should you?)

Stuff from the old templates will be gradually reintroduced. Right now, I just want to get moving again.

My thanks to Liz Lubowitz, at whose designs I sneaked a peek, and to Melody, who held down the fort in my enforced absence.

We now return you to your regularly-scheduled bloggage.





5 comments

  1. Yippee-Ki-Yay! »

    6 September 2006 · 8:35 pm

    Deja Vu

    Apparently I’m not the only one to have had occasion to ask, “Is this thing on?” today. Charles had a server crash and a corrupted database, so he’s archived the last 47 years of Dustbury and started over with a new database.

  2. Brad »

    7 September 2006 · 5:32 am

    Very glad your back. I was starting to get withdrawals. Fortunately, you offered us addicts a quick fix with your periodic updates on what was going on with the server.

    Very glad your back. (Did I say that already?)

  3. Dwayne "the canoe guy" »

    7 September 2006 · 9:11 am

    Yup, you’re the Cal Ripkin of Okie bloggers, while I am the Herve Villechaize of same.

  4. Private tutor »

    10 September 2006 · 10:03 am

    Good idea mate, great article as well.I have a question, Just wondering … If the tories take over in the next general election, do you think our education system will get more efficient ?Thanks

  5. CGHill »

    10 September 2006 · 10:59 am

    Hard to say for sure. Labour is not known for its efficiency.

    I, however, am reasonably efficient at spotting attempts to gain unwarranted linkage, and I figured that since you posted this twice with a link to an irrelevant (to this readership, anyway) directory, the proper response was to answer the question to the best of my ability (which, given my general inattention to British politics, is not so great) and to excise that link. (My generosity knows some bounds.)

RSS feed for comments on this post