 | | jump.cgi —Kevin Loch
|
| | | Todd, What is the purpose of jump.cgi? Was there any problem with external links that prompted this? Or is is simply to track what links get clikced by who and how often? If that data was useful for LUGNET (i.e. helps you raise money etc.) then I (...) (24 years ago, 11-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: jump.cgi —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) No problems that I'm aware of, no. (...) It's to analyze what links get clicked and from where (which page). It's something that can potentially be reported or tabulated for link listings, etc. (see Patrick Delahanty's site listings[1], for (...) (24 years ago, 11-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: jump.cgi —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | (...) Todd is a Geek. He likes stats. :) (24 years ago, 11-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: jump.cgi —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | (...) Do you find the delay (I've found it to be quite noticable) to be acceptable? It seems to be adding somewhere between 2-3 seconds onto the process of jumping to the intended URL. Dealing with that once isn't much of an issue, but as I noticed (...) (24 years ago, 14-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: jump.cgi —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | (...) I don't notice any such delay. Maybe you just hit the server at a bad time? (24 years ago, 14-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: jump.cgi —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | | (...) If so it was bad when I originally posted the message and bad again when I posted to this thread - some hour or two later. The delay isn't huge, but it is there. (24 years ago, 14-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: jump.cgi —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) That's very strange. What kind of net connection are you on? Even on a modem, it shouldn't add more than 1/2 second. The jump.cgi script itself runs in the blink of an eye. --Todd (24 years ago, 14-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: jump.cgi —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | (...) 128k ISDN. I've tried loading the same page a few times - one with just a single 1.3k image on it and there is a noticable delay between hitting the link then being forwarded to the target URL. The image itself is in my cache and should be (...) (24 years ago, 14-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: jump.cgi —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) That is soooo weird. The jump.cgi script runs inside of 1/100 second. On ISDN, you really shouldn't notice more than 1/10 extra added time. Anyone else seeing this strange behavior? BTW, what text shows in your browser's status window while (...) (24 years ago, 14-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: jump.cgi —David Schilling
|
| | | | | (...) back (...) I have a 768 DSL connection, and I also get a 4 to 5 second delay. I've seen this a lot recently as well, but haven't mentioned it because I wanted to see what types of links do this. (...) On my computer (with IE 5.5) most of the (...) (24 years ago, 14-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: jump.cgi —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | (...) I see no problem either at home or at work. At home, I've got SDSL at 768, and at work there's an amazingly fast connection (think it's currently dual 45Mbit to the general internet). This is with either Mozilla (nightly) or Netscape 4.7x (...) (24 years ago, 14-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: jump.cgi —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | (...) back (...) Just tried it here at work. Our largest single pipe to the commodity internet is a DS-3 through Qwest and that's the link I'm tracing from me to you (actually it drops into Sprint to get to Pair). Same delay time - up to 4 seconds. (...) (24 years ago, 14-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: jump.cgi —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) Wow, that it soooo freaking bizarre. And it's consistent? Must be something deeper and stranger going on here. (...) Would it be possible to make a screen shot of it and write down the exact text? If it's putting in underscores, that's very (...) (24 years ago, 14-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: jump.cgi —David Schilling
|
| | | | | | | (...) Can't help you there, I only have MSIE. (...) I did a screen capture of #2; you'll find it located temporarily at (URL) if you want. -- David Schilling (24 years ago, 14-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: jump.cgi —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | (...) OK, good, then this has nothing to do with jump.cgi per se (not that I thought it did, but it's better to be sure just in case). You're seeing the same thing from a different redirector. (The display.cgi script simply picks apart the ng name (...) (24 years ago, 14-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: jump.cgi —David Schilling
|
| | | | | | | | (...) the first time it was this fast. Multiple times didn't improve the speed at all. (...) the delay. I didn't get a delay with mimg.cgi, (the first link) though. By the way, how did you get those long urls to not split across lines? -- David (...) (24 years ago, 15-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: jump.cgi —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | (...) OK, that makes sense. It's only accessing one server there once the image is cached, and then it gives you a large image file. (...) That's totally bizarre too. Another redirection script on a completely different site, presumably doing (...) (24 years ago, 15-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: jump.cgi —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | | (...) I just tried this with IE 5.5 on Win95. No delays. (This is from home.) (24 years ago, 14-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: jump.cgi —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | | (...) Consistent across platforms using both IE 5.01 and IE 5.5. I did notice that using Navigator 4.08 on NT 4 showed now delay at all. So this is at least partially a problem with IE, which is not much of a surprise, but then again, IE is the only (...) (24 years ago, 15-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: jump.cgi —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) A-HA! OK, we're getting closer! Could you try the links contained in this article -- (URL) the last indented one which bounces to www.yahoo.com)? If that shows no delay for you under MSIE, then it's probably a good bet that the multiple (URL) (...) (24 years ago, 15-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: jump.cgi —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | (...) I think it's specifically the multiple ":" characters. RFC 1738 mentions ":" as a reserved character -- that is, when it occurs in the scheme-specific part of a URL (URLs being <scheme>:<scheme-spe...fic-part>, of course) it should *only* be (...) (24 years ago, 15-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: jump.cgi —Carlo Ottolina
|
| | | | | I'm on a 2Mb/sec frame-relay link. I don't see any problem from here (Italy). Same delay as before (without jump.cgi). No problem also with a 56Kbit/sec dial-up to a local ISP (Tiscalinet). It doesn't look like a routing problem, maybe a browser-OS (...) (24 years ago, 14-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: jump.cgi —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | (...) I'm no fan of jump.cgi for my own reasons (just because it considers itself it's own link- so it always looks unfollowed, even if the page you'll end up at by following it is one you've been to before, until you follow the jump.cgi link). But (...) (24 years ago, 14-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
