Lot's of point's. This post may require a few edit's to answer them all so refresh:
AFAIK, others filehosts have no linkchecker tool, then will be necessary check the links individually. 100 links, 100 remote check
I belive all of our link checker's can check multiple file hosts multiple times. We all check more than for example 20 I'm pretty sure and can all add extra where needed. :P It's more of a question of which one's are needed. This isn't an issue as far as I'm concerned. This is probably one of the few thing's we'll agree on.
Now imagine without a tool/API, would be necessary to review every link. If there are 100 links, the charging time of the page would be an exaggeration. No one likes a forum with the page loading for over 40seconds.
Presume the following: charging = loading, with = where, is = for, for the above reply. Sorry, just needed to clarify.
All our link checker's as far as I know check more than 40 links.
It's very bad pratice to have pages that take a long time to load fully. That is why LinkzBot Link Checker uses a 'Check Download Links' Button. Othewise it may take several minutes for the page to load depending on the amount of links which is very bad for you website.
With megaupload there is a big difference because it only allows checks 10 links at a time, then the MOD should do 10 remote query.
Dont think any of us have a problem with this. We can all get around this problem. At least I can and give the others credit that their capable of getting around this without checking their sites.
It is possible, but I don't think it is a good idea to do so.
The MOD is fast, even has a cache to avoid remote checks; and even will avoids load, if messages that have been discarded because they have no links.
But there is a process that inevitably require load time.
To check the links requires to remote checks. This consumes time.
This is a good idea which none of us have at the moment. I currently have something very, very simillar where if it's checked a page (it remembers the page, not the links which is faster and more relevant) and just shows the results instantly if it's in the last 12 hours. I have this as a custome mod for a busy site but it could be rolled out to other sites but to be honest from stats and results I don't think it's necessary. If you want, it you can have it added easily.
For example, they can make the test, and look the time it takes to create the page.
100 links rapidshare's approx 0.4s (~ 0.3s in remote check)
100 links filefactory's approx 0.45s (~ 0.35s in remote check)
100 links megaupload's link approx 4.5s (~ 4.3s in remote check)
There is a small difference between rapidshare and filefactory, due to the responsiveness of each host.
All our sites have to check your site to get the links. That means if you site is slow to load all the link checkers will be slow to check. We're all pretty much the same on this and I believe we all have 100Mb+ connection speed etc. Mine may be a micro second slower as it stores the info to a database but nothing you'll notice. This also isn't an issue between us as far as I'm conserned.
The MOD is fast, even has a cache to avoid remote checks; and even will avoids load, if messages that have been discarded because they have no links.
Mine tell's you if their are no links on the page (as if it's not bloody obvious already). RW has to scan the page for links first but then won't check if their aren't any. It's simillar for all and they all solved this problem in my oponion.
To be honest after writing this reply I'd be half interested on working on a communial Link Checker if
SplitIce or
ddlshack were interested and stop all this confustion and petty arguments. I respect SplitIce and admire the other work he's done. I don't know ddlshack but his Javascript is pretty good....... Any interest?
