Stylesheet issues? Broken links? AAAHH!!!
Is anyone else having technical difficulties whereby my blog's stylesheet is refusing to load, thus causing the website to look all screwed up? (If you're confused, it's supposed to look like this... not like this.) I am, and when I try to load the stylesheet manually, I get a "404 Not Found" error. I have no idea why.
Also confusing: the first time I clicked the URL in InstaPundit's post linking to me, I got a 404 error. The second time, the link worked. The third time, another 404 error. WTF? I know it's not just me, because Anonymous Hoosier is reporting problems too. Moreover, the traffic is very much below what I'd expect from an Instalanche... so I think lots of people are having trouble accessing that URL.
TypePad, I'm not real happy with you right now...
yes, I see stylesheet problem in Firefox.
Posted by: john | Aug 29, 2007 12:54:25 PM
IT.
In response to your unflattering responses to your blog name, may I suggest the following.... IT.
Maybe lose the period. I rish T rojan.
- Keeps it simple, its memorable
- Suggests your website is the definitive word.
- Get IT, Just Do IT, Damn IT, IT works.. you get the idea
- You may move to Phoenix, Nashville or podunk and who cares - the real roots for your entire life will be the Irish Trojan heritage. IT
- Why am I thinking about something like this trying to sleep at night?
Posted by: Burkeman | Aug 29, 2007 12:54:51 PM
Indeed, i'm also getting problems with other pages being randomly 404'd. Seems like typepad's servers are either not very robust or just having a bad week.
Posted by: David K. | Aug 29, 2007 12:57:00 PM
I do not see any style sheet issues in Opera. However, I am noticing that, if I want to scroll down the page to previous pots, it is very s-l-o-w to scroll down. I'm not sure if that's an issue with your particular blog (I'm not having problems on any other site) or if it's just my browser.
Posted by: Trisha | Aug 29, 2007 12:57:47 PM
I was getting the messed-up page with Firefox. All seems well now.
Posted by: kcatnd | Aug 29, 2007 12:58:20 PM
OK, now I'm getting random broken links. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't.
Posted by: kcatnd | Aug 29, 2007 12:59:13 PM
I had problems on Internet Explorer (on a PC), but now I'm using Firefox (on a Mac) and the site looks fine...
Posted by: Vicki (Lopez) from NJ | Aug 29, 2007 1:05:11 PM
All right, thanks everyone. I just submitted the following in a help ticket to TypePad:
Posted by: Brendan Loy | Aug 29, 2007 1:08:12 PM
I have not had any problems with the stylesheets. I have also been able to click links through w/o an issue.
Posted by: Jeff | Aug 29, 2007 1:20:39 PM
There's no <style> tag in the <head>, only the <link> tag referring to the style sheet.
Regards,
Ric
Posted by: Ric Locke | Aug 29, 2007 1:36:30 PM
yea style sheet isnt working for me and i use firefox
Posted by: anon | Aug 29, 2007 1:37:30 PM
Syle sheet is wack.
Posted by: | Aug 29, 2007 1:44:33 PM
Your blog looks like it was created on a Commodore 64 using Pascal programming. Talk about a flash back to the early 1980s.
Posted by: | Aug 29, 2007 2:19:31 PM
Yes I website am having problems.
Posted by: Bea | Aug 29, 2007 2:23:20 PM
I couldn't event type a coherent message. hehe
Posted by: Bea | Aug 29, 2007 2:23:45 PM
I refreshed and all is well now..
Posted by: Bea | Aug 29, 2007 2:24:48 PM
Did you suppress the post that I wrote? Harumph.
Posted by: Josh Rubin | Aug 29, 2007 2:25:36 PM
I've been using FireFox all along and have had no problems with links or your stylesheet. All looks good here!
Posted by: isuquinndog | Aug 29, 2007 2:31:16 PM
Josh, I didn't suppress anything - what happened?
Posted by: Brendan Loy | Aug 29, 2007 2:37:05 PM
I noted the page errors occasionally yesterday, but attributed it to you tinkering with something.
I know you were using WordPress previously, so I was wondering why you hadn't just tried to move over to WordPress' free hosting or something of the like.
Posted by: Jay Johnson | Aug 29, 2007 2:47:13 PM
I had sheet errors in FireFox last night. Today (at work) I was on with IE and didn't encounter any errors. I did get a 404 when I tried to click the comments for a few articles. I haven't tried to navigate here with Safari.
Also...what Jay said? "I know you were using WordPress previously, so I was wondering why you hadn't just tried to move over to WordPress' free hosting or something of the like."
Posted by: Marty West | Aug 29, 2007 2:50:47 PM
WordPress.org does not allow you to directly edit the HTML on the templates. That totally ruled it out, as far as I was concerned.
Posted by: Brendan Loy | Aug 29, 2007 2:56:15 PM
Well after commenting above, I came back and had no stylesheet. I refreshed and then I had it back again.
Posted by: | Aug 29, 2007 3:17:57 PM
Style sheet Good. / Instapundit link Goofed. 404ed twice consecutively; did get the ITinTN. :> on 3rd try.
Posted by: Joe Loy | Aug 29, 2007 3:30:32 PM
Brendan:
Another issue -- of less immediate importance -- is that some attempts to visit the Old Archives are met with an error, e.g.:
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /wp/2007/08/ on this server.
This error is also intermittent, as I have had no difficulty accessing May and July 2007 archives, but have encountered it for June and August (I have not bothered to clear my cache, so I can't tell if its recurrence for those months is real or an artifact).
Posted by: Anonymous Hoosier | Aug 29, 2007 4:19:10 PM
Brendan, what do you mean that WP does not allow you to modify the template HTML? I use WP as my self-hosted blog editor, and I've modified the html before....Maybe what I have modified isn't what you are talking about, though...
Posted by: Trisha | Aug 29, 2007 4:27:50 PM
Your site crashes my (crappy, old, outdated) version of Firefox. Boo.
Posted by: Briandot | Aug 29, 2007 4:42:47 PM
Seems like TypePad is more trouble than its worth. Whats your bandwidth usage a month?
Posted by: David K. | Aug 29, 2007 4:45:03 PM
I refreshed and all is well now
This is an excellent idea. I just loaded your website, and it looked...odd. Then I read the comments, and I refreshed, and *poof* as if by magic, it restored itself.
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie | Aug 29, 2007 5:08:21 PM
I've had style sheet issues, plus the archives on the old site for the month of August I can only access in a round about way--find a comment, access that post, and scroll forward or backward posts. The link to the actual archives of August 2007 have been broken every time I've tried.
Posted by: Mike | Aug 29, 2007 5:49:55 PM
Trisha, I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing. I'm talking about WordPress.org, which is WP's hosted blog solution. By "self-hosted," I assume you mean you have WP installed on your server, which is precisely the setup I'd had for the last 15 months or so, until this switch. That solution indeed allows almost infinite customization of everything. But it also overwhelms anything other than a dedicated server, when your blog is as huge (database-wise) and gets as much traffic as mine.
David, I'm not sure TypePad is the problem. It may be a WestHost domain redirect issue. TypePad claims they aren't having any server issues today. I think this is a simple glitch on somebody's end, not indicative of a broader problem with TypePad.
And, to answer your question (or rather, to not answer it, because it's the wrong question :), bandwidth isn't the issue. Server resources are. It's a long story, but trust me, I've been over this in about a million different ways, and every time the conclusion is the same: I either need to use TypePad/BlogSpot or I need to use a dedicated server. And I can't afford to keep using a dedicated server. So, TypePad/BlogSpot it is. It's not a choice I made because I wanted to -- it's a choice I made because I had to.
Anyway, I have tickets open with both TypePad and WestHost. Hopefully this will be resolved soon.
Posted by: Brendan Loy | Aug 29, 2007 6:48:40 PM
Have you considered other hosting services that let you fully host, even on a shared server? The reason I ask is because i've been hearing some very good things about a hosting company called A Small Orange. They have some pretty reasonably priced shared server plans, and if nothing else could tell you based on your past experiences if their servers can handle what WestHosts's didn't.
Posted by: David K. | Aug 29, 2007 7:41:32 PM
David, I've asked about a half-dozen hosts whether they can handle my website on a shared server, and all the ones who seem to take my request seriously and analyze it closely end up reluctantly coming the conclusion that they can't. I very seriously doubt that A Small Orange would be any different. You say you've "heard good things" about them... but it isn't simply a question of whether they're a good host... WestHost is a very good host, too, and so are several of the others I've inquired with, but the reality is that my site, when using WordPress for the main blog, simply uses too many server resources to be hosted successfully on a shared server, especially when Instalanches and such occur. I appreciate the suggestions, but I'm really beyond trying to brainstorm ways to maintain the prior status quo. I've already accepted that that's impossible as a practical matter.
Now, if you know of a better hosted blog service than BlogSpot or TypePad... ;)
Posted by: Brendan Loy | Aug 29, 2007 7:55:51 PM
Well shoot, a guy tries to help and he just gets shut down ;-)
I see your point, and it makes sense. I wonder how much ads would have help, i mean your hero Instapundit uses them, you should too!
Posted by: David K. | Aug 29, 2007 9:34:33 PM
Or endorsements!
"Hi, I'm Brendan Loy, and when I'm up all night blogging about something nerdy, i fuel my hunger with Cheezy Poofs! Poofy and cheezy they give me all the energy I need!"
Posted by: David K. | Aug 29, 2007 9:35:32 PM
Hmm, ok, I think I see my mistake in thinking. My blog is on a shared server, the same as Brian's, and we both use wordpress, so I suppose it is like your brendanloy.com/irishtrojan.com site. I have the option of 4 different blog services through Fantastico in my CPanel. Other than WP, there is nucleus, pmachine (now ellis labs), and b2evolution. I don't know if any of them will have what your looking for, but there they are in case you're interested.
Posted by: Trisha | Aug 29, 2007 9:40:21 PM
This new blog server is disappointing to me.
Somehow this format DOESN'T engage me or make me want to come back and visit your site or interact with whatever is being discussed.
I feel that all your interests and insights have been reduced to much of nothing.
Is it possible that a style page can suck the life out of an interesting person?
Posted by: Nadine | Aug 29, 2007 10:08:06 PM
This new blog server is disappointing to me.
Somehow this format DOESN'T engage me or make me want to come back and visit your site or interact with whatever is being discussed.
I feel that all your interests and insights have been reduced to much of nothing.
Is it possible that a style page can suck the life out of an interesting person?
Posted by: Nadine | Aug 29, 2007 10:13:21 PM
This new blog server is disappointing to me.
Somehow this format DOESN'T engage me or make me want to come back and visit your site or interact with whatever is being discussed.
I feel that all your interests and insights have been reduced to much of nothing.
Is it possible that a style page can suck the life out of an interesting person?
Posted by: Nadine | Aug 29, 2007 10:15:16 PM
I have NO idea why this my comment posted multiple times. Perhaps the system is registered my intense dislike of the current host?
Posted by: Nadine | Aug 29, 2007 10:17:51 PM
Nadine, when you talk about "this format," are you referring to the format as it's supposed to be, or to the messed-up, stylesheet-less format?
In any event, the style is certainly subject to change. The issue of the blog's style is entirely separate from the issue of the blogging service -- I could, if I wanted to, recreate the previous style almost exactly using TypePad instead of WordPress. It would take a lot of effort, and I'm not sure I want to, but I could. I could also make WordPress look like this style. Anyway, if you have any specific suggestions for what you like/don't like about the current style (again, referring to the real style, not the messed-up, stylesheet-less crap, which is of course awful), I'm all ears. :)
Posted by: Brendan Loy | Aug 29, 2007 11:04:25 PM
Let me be more precise: I'm not talking about the blogging service but about the actual visual presentation of the blog. I think the ability to paginate is important given this blog's hyperactivity.
The general format you are now using I find somehow off putting. Your previous site pulled one into it and its discussions, this one doesn't.
Also I find the head title to be top heavy, it takes attention away from the blog contents.
Posted by: Nadine | Aug 30, 2007 12:06:20 AM
Sorry but I stand by what I said, i think its crazy to argue that the SEC East is tougher than the entire Pac-10. Last year for example, you had a TIE for first in the pac-10, USC took first because it had beat Cal, but both had two conference losses. Going back to the Pre-Pete Caroll years of USC dominance, you had a different team going to the Rose Bowl from the Pac-10 year after year for nearly a decade. If it were so easy to win in the Pac-10, one or two teams would dominate consistently, as is the case in the SEC where a handful of teams are always winning. Meanwhile Florida has taken the SEC East crown 8 times in the past 15 years. The other two years it was either Georgia or Tennessee.
I'd be willing to accept arguments for a given year when the SEC East was tougher than the Pac-10, but over all? Sorry it just doesn't make sense.
Posted by: David K. | Aug 30, 2007 5:31:23 AM
Ok, this posted in the completely WRONG thread. Man TypePad is schizophrenic or something!
Posted by: David K. | Aug 30, 2007 5:33:03 AM
My problem -- many photographs are suddenly missing, replaced with small blue squares with a white question mark -- seems to occur only in Apple's Safari. It is working fine in Firefox.
Posted by: | Aug 30, 2007 9:13:36 PM
My problem -- many photographs are suddenly missing, replaced with small blue squares with a white question mark -- seems to occur only in Apple's Safari. It is working fine in Firefox.
Posted by: Sissy Willis | Aug 30, 2007 9:14:09 PM
More checking reveals both Safari and Firefox are missing pictures, but not the same ones.
Posted by: Sissy Willis | Aug 30, 2007 9:35:59 PM