News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The Onion cut 66% of their bandwidth by upstream caching ... by ShabbyDoo on Thursday March 25, 2010 @04:38PM (#1219429)
"The Onion is throwing away 66% of its traffic by serving up 404s instead of serving up page views."

Spidering and organic activity are bundled together in this 66% number. It would be interesting to know what percentage of this was people who wanted to see an Onion page.

Re:The Onion cut 66% of their bandwidth by upstream caching ... by brc on Thursday March 25, 2010 @06:44PM (#1219751)
It's irrelevant that it is spidering mixed in. You can think of spidering as a future page view, assuming that page gets indexed.

The spiders and organic visitors should have been 301 redirected to the correct location. Spiders learn the 301 redirects, and some of their articles may even benefited from better search rankings.

Re:The Onion cut 66% of their bandwidth by upstream caching ... by john_onion on Friday March 26, 2010 @12:02AM (#1220232)
As I said in my post below, spiders that request article_url/reddit.png or article_url/google-analytics.com/ga.gs do not get a 301 from me because they're not looking at an href of an <a> tag. They're guessing at a URL that never existed. They are legitimate 404 responses.
Re:The Onion cut 66% of their bandwidth by upstream caching ... by juliusdavies on Friday March 26, 2010 @01:39AM (#1220349)
I feel sorry for John_Onion. The comments here are coming from people who have never looked at server logs (e.g. 'how do you know those are all spiders?'). Looking at my logs I would say at least 75% of my hits (juliusdavies.ca) are spiders. They come and visit every single page a few times a year to see if it's changed. For my own purposes I mirror some open source manuals and specifications (http://juliusdavies.ca/webdocs/). These have been on my site, unchanged, for at least 3 years, and the spiders come every couple months and check every page.

These hits will never (and should never!) translate into even a single real user in my case.

Re:The Onion cut 66% of their bandwidth by upstream caching ... by JoachimSchipper on Friday March 26, 2010 @06:16AM (#1220666)
Wouldn't exclusion via robots.txt be appropriate in this case?