• So i’ve realized recently that Blog address (URL) option under settings isn’t a great idea. Because.. it’s not an option! It auto-fills from whatever the WordPress address (URL) is if you leave it empty. So what does this mean? Say your site is https://whatever.com So in the WordPress address (URL) field, you type that in, thus making it auto-fille the Blog address (URL) too! Now if somebody types in https://www.whatever.com they are redirected to https://whatever.com That might not seem like such a big deal, BUT wait a sec.. this is a value stored in the database! That means the redirect is happening AFTER atleast 1 query to the database has already been made. So for people using the typical ole https://www.whatever.com, wordpress INSISTS on changing it thus wasting server resourcse. Another connection on my already taxed database. What. The. Hell?

Viewing 4 replies - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • it’s a bloody excellent idea, in fact.

    What it does is make sure your cookies are using the right domain, so your users don’t wonder why they’re not logged in anymore, or why they keep having to type their names/emails when commenting.

    It also ensures that people bookmark your site correctly, and copy/paste your URL properly when telling others about your site.

    All of this is absolutely worth the query. It’s up to you to decide which one people will type in more often, and set your site to that.

    Also, if you’re worried about one query, potentially ONE query ever, if people then bookmark your page properly… then you have serious hosting issues, and this won’t be the reason your site is slow.

    Thread Starter iamnino

    (@iamnino)

    I’m still not game. I think it should be an option. My client’s site doesn’t require users to be logged in to comment. Actually you can’t login unless you’re a writer. So moot point there.

    As for bookmarking a site correctly? Are you kidding me? I don’t care if they bookmark https://www.blah.com https://blah.com, or the ip address. It all goes to the same place.

    As for you thinking it’s JUST one query. It’s not about that it’s the BAM BAM 2 db connections. You realize there is such a thing as max connections to your db right? If that’s maxed, then woops wordpress will not connect to the db. When you have thousands of visitors a day, connections add up quick.

    Want another reason I think it’s lame? I just had a client switch hosting. The client wanted a 301 redirect to the new site. However I couldn’t put the domain into the Blog address (URL) because the 301 redirect had to redirect to the IP. What does this mean? For somebody who’s dns hasn’t switched yet. They would be redirected to the new site only to be redirected back again and are now in an endless loop between wordpress. Also, since wordpress hard codes image urls, it means that means that new stories written under the domain name instead of the IP won’t show up for people with the incorrect dns, because it will be looking for those images on the other domain, where they won’t exist.

    Ultimately it should be an option. Not something forced.

    Well, I guess when your idea of doing things properly actually involves doing the completely wrong thing, then I can see why this is frustrating.

    If you’re moving a domain to a new server, a 301 redirect is exactly the WRONG thing to use – no links are screwed up, and hence no redirect is necessary when you switch hosts. That’s a pretty dumb thing to do.

    Also, DNS propagates in (usually much) less than 72 hours. For those 3 days, to avoid DNS issues, you keep the old blog hosted in the old location, but you point the config file to the new database.

    Same domain = your blog is in two places at the same time. Any comments left by people will appear in the new DB, and when their DNS switches over, the process is entirely transparent.

    That’s the way to move hosts on a live blog… what you’re doing exposes you as a hack with no experience, unfortunately for your client.

    Thread Starter iamnino

    (@iamnino)

    I would have done that in normal circumstances. However, you’re assuming that everything is fine on the original hosting, and that this is simply a leisure transition from one hosting to another. Well it wasn’t.

    The hosting was shit, due to what I expect was internal network problems of their own or shitty hardware. At times, it would take between 30 seconds to a minute before the browser would even reflect the change in the page title from the site you were previously on. My client didn’t want people still visiting the old site REGARDLESS if their dns had propagated or not.

    That being said, I had to redirect to the ip address of the new hosting (which is running as it should) and if I had the Blog address (URL) set to the domain name, it would have sent them right back to the crap hosting, putting them into a redirect loop.

    I still stand by my opinion that that this should be an OPTION to turn on and off, and I will thank-you kindly if in the future you would get more details about a situation before casting insults, showing contempt, and using a condescending tone towards somebody you don’t even know.

Viewing 4 replies - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • The topic ‘Blog address (URL) Bad Idea?’ is closed to new replies.