Domains that are unresponsive or over 512kb
Closed this issue · 14 comments
The main purpose of this issue is to notify the domain owners in case it is an error
| Domain | Owner | Issue/PR # | Problem | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| theandrewbailey.com | @theandrewbailey | #259 | Domain is offline 503 Error | All Clear |
| klokmork.com | @ardabck | #140 | Ultra lightweight sites | All Clear |
| sinax.be | @MichaelAnckaert | #203 | Ultra lightweight sites | Removed @ 508df3a |
| tredkip.github.io | @ghost User deleted account | #286 | GitHub Pages 404 Error | Removed @ 5452e78 |
| sontek.net | @sontek | #197 | Site is down | Site is live |
| lo.hn | @lohn | #312 | Site is down | Removed @ 8bd36be |
| cirno.digital | @idontwantgithub | #245 | Site is down | Removed @ 2846a87 |
@kmutahar sorry, but I've lost the domain name. You can remove lo.hn as it won't come back.
@kmutahar Thanks for the notice. I'm working on theandrewbailey.com, it should be back online in a few hours.
@kmutahar just checked the website, it should be up now. i believe it was a temprorary hosting issue. thanks for the notice.
Whats the uptime requirement for being on the list? Its the weekend and I'm actively working on my personal site right now so its going to be back up but I don't guarantee 100% uptime on it since its not a business. Should I be more careful with its uptime to stay on the list?
sontek.net is back up for now but not guaranteeing I won't restart it a few more times this weekend :P
@sontek there is no uptime requirement I was just going through the list of sites to clean them up. The plan from time to time is to go over the sites to check they are still up and to check the size. Opening an issue and contacting the people that added the domain is so that we don't over react like your case.
@ardabck the problem isn't your site was offline but that it could be seen as an ultra light weight site since it contains no information.
@kevquirk what do you think of the two sites that I flagged as ultra light weight. Or are they good?
@kmutahar sinax.be is definitely ultra lightweight and needs to be removed.
klokmork.com I dunno. There's not much to it, but the image bg makes it interesting. It's also well designed. What do you think about that one?
@kevquirk i think keep it, since it shows that a site can be well designed and still be small. Even without much content it did take work.
We also need to define ultra light weight a bit more clearly in another issue.
@kmutahar did a redesign of the header, and stripped out the FAQ to it's own page. Added more meat around the "ultra light" thing and what we won't accept in general. Let me know your thoughts.
@kevquirk it looks so much better and cleaner, one thing if you can make the FAQ button centered tried but I'm not the best in CSS and just made it worse
Done. Update building now.
Removed cirno.digital and still no contact from owner @idontwantgithub