1. 1

    Everyone please calm down and stop making up stories. ReadText is not SPAM and not SPAMMING! I’ve personally requested Admin of Lobsters to remove any ReadText.org posts I made since you all consider it to be spam or self-promotion. It’s funny that you self-promote others everyday but when some one else posts there own website link you consider this to be spam. Spamming this site was never my intention, so please stop whining! The only AD on the site is non-intrusive text-only on the top of the page this it. ALL the content posted on ReadText is with permission from original sources. Happy holidays everyone, and peace!

    1. 3

      So? They’re interesting documents. The site doesn’t seem to be spamming, but it is quality content, age considered.

      Is @tuxy affiliated with the site? If they aren’t shilling or anything, I’m fine.

      1. 14

        The website looks to be quite new (probably his own?) and all the content is straight from http://textfiles.com with some formatting and ads. Shouldn’t he link the original source directly?

        1. 1

          @ sdlnv, I post link to original content on all pages on the bottom of the page!

        2. 4

          It just seems a bit strange to produce a pseudo-index of the site in the form of lobsters posts. I wasn’t sure, hence posting here.

          The poster does appear to be affiliated with/the author of the site in question, and indeed, can be seen posting the same links elsewhere ([1], [2]).

          1. 1

            @ kivikakk, “pseudo-index” does not bellong to just one site. Its just a good way to organize relavent content. I never even looked at Lobsters or any other site when I designed ReadText ;-)

          2. 1

            @ calvin, yes any text-file posted is hand-picked and formated to be easily read on any device. Yes I’m the editor on the site :-) I’m glad you like the site, in time there will be much more content from other BBS' boards and old forums as well. (with permission to re-post of course ;-)

          1. 5

            definitely clickbaiting. content is stolen (see below) and plastered with ads. just remove this already and be done with it.

            1. 1

              @FRIGN, I got permission to post all the content :-) But if you guys don’t like it yes please remove it ;-)

              To Mods/Admins: Please delete any posts you consider spamming. Thank You!

              1. 1

                @ FRIGN, Please STOP lying! No content is stolen!!! I got permission to re-post any text file on website. Also there is only one non-intrusive text-only AD, not plastered with ADs like you say!

                @Admin/Mod: If you feel that any of the posts that I made is SPAM please REMOVE them! Thank You!

              1. 1

                Do people simply not care about search? None of these static generators seem to support it (fine) but nobody ever mentions it either. Seems like a pretty basic feature for a blog to have.

                I even search my own blog quite frequently to find old posts. It’s very handy.

                1. 2

                  I assume many people running static sites just wait for google to index everything, and use “site:” queries if they are looking for something in particular. Or they just use grep/ack/ag on the markdown source files.

                  1. 1

                    Yeah, I guess that too, but seems like a fault. Off the top of my head…

                    “Don’t depend on third party dependencies.”

                    Nobody includes a search box, limiting discoverability. I can remember to manually go to google and search (and spell your domain right). Or I can forget.

                    Google’s search results are obviously styled quite differently. For all the effort that people spend on styling their themes, they’d care about the appearance of search results too, no?

                    Search results don’t contain metadata you want, but only what Google decides is your page’s summary.

                    Difficult to execute advanced queries, since Google can’t access your own metadata (tags, author, date).

                    Can’t control relevance or order. Google may decide to “juice” a popular post, but it may not be the newest or best.

                    Forgets that companies or groups may have internal sites, not accessible via google.

                    1. 3

                      I think for a blog, most casual bloggers simply don’t care much about search or “stickiness”. They have a link to an archive or index of all posts, and consider that “good enough”. Most people come in organically via search engines, or directly via reddit/HN/lobsters/etc. Few people probably stick around after reading the individual article.

                      Obviously people who are trying to derive money from their blogging efforts likely feel differently.

                      Nobody includes a search box, limiting discoverability. I can remember to manually go to google and search (and spell your domain right). Or I can forget.

                      I have seen a few people include a textbox that simply builds a google search string and sends you there. Personally, not my cup of tea. I fully agree with not wanting to rely on Google. I personally use duckduckgo whenever I can for my own searches. For my own dumb blog that nobody reads, I just don’t provide search at all. Just an “all articles” index.

                      Maybe something like what Sphinx does as far as search (an pre-built index file that javascript just loads and queries), would be a great fit for a static blog.

                      1. 2

                        Most people come in organically via search engines, or directly via reddit/HN/lobsters/etc. Few people probably stick around after reading the individual article.

                        And even for those who do stick around, tags seem to solve the major use-case, which is browsing for other posts on a similar subject.

                  2. 1

                    How would search work, if it’s generating static files intended for serving on anything that can serve an HTML file?

                    1. 2

                      Well, that’s kind of my point. Every week somebody announces “I switched to a static site and lost ten pounds!” but there’s no discussion, not even a mention, of what functionality has been traded away. Certainly, people don’t need all of wordpress, but I consider integrated search a major feature. What I find more surprising is not that some people can get by without search, but that there is no discussion of it.

                      1. 0

                        You could use Google Search feature it works very well.

                        https://cse.google.com/cse/

                      2. 1

                        I never use on-site search on other people’s weblogs. Or more truthfully, only as a very last resort. Either I search them with Google, or else I’m subscribed and I search my feed reader’s database, which lets me formulate queries as complex as I want. (Which doesn’t work in your case because you don’t have a fulltext feed, grrr.)

                        And my own weblog I just search locally. It wouldn’t really occur to me to bring up my own site in my browser and then type into my own search box.

                        So it would in fact not really occur to me to mention the lack of search as a lost feature. Considering your experience that no one does, it’s in fact quite possible that your use of people’s on-site search is a personal peculiarity of yours, not a widely shared habit. :-)

                      1. 1

                        .

                        1. 3

                          That’s not what upvotes and downvotes are intended to be used for.

                        1. 3

                          See showcase for example sites running hugo here; http://gohugo.io/showcase/

                          1. 2

                            An alternative to this is my own nginx-explorer though this one is much, much prettier. I do like the fact that mine works with stock nginx, and does not require recompiling nginx.

                            However, I’ll have to improve mine to match the beauty of yours. Well done!

                            1. 1

                              @ evaryont, Thank You! In time I’ll be releasing better version which will have more file extensions support.