RE: Release of Ringlink 1.1

["Pamster" <pam@pamster.com>]

>
> Hi Pam,
>
> Thanks for reporting your observations. Besides a few general remarks
> at http://www.gunnar.cc/ringlink/mailarc/msg01094.html, a few comments
> follow below:
>
> Pamster wrote:
> >
> > I only checked for "Next" link, cause I thought it might not take
> > so long to check if that's all it was checking.
>
> I think that the difference due to how many links it checks is
> negligible.
OK - thanks
>
> > I had changed the URLS for the sites so that the html & entrance
> > URLs were the same...
>
> Why?
That was a housekeeping thing - don't even know why I mentioned it.  Ignore
it.
> > Some sites that failed that should have passed:
> > ...
> > Site ID: 17 | Site title: New Art
> > http://members.fortunecity.com/princess_elki1/newart.html
> > - Next-link missing or incorrect
>
> I noticed that there are linebreaks after the question marks in the
> links, and I have made changes in the script which should deal with
> that; maybe this will make a difference.
OK
> > Does it mess the checker up if the same URL is in both URL fields?
>
> No.
>
> > Beta-tester extraordinare!!  ;-)
>
> Unfortunately the need for it is bigger than I had anticipated. Again,
> thanks!
I understand.  I'm happy to provide testing assistance.  (I do that in my
real job.)
As another piece of information.  I don't know if I mentioned it before.  I
have a smaller ring, about 11 sites.  First time through ~ 11 sites failed.
I fixed the four of them, reran the checker, and all passed except the first
2 (which are on that addr.com server that returns the strange responses you
were mentioning.)
Pam