Cleaning up old site - tips please

Throwing out a question before I close off for the night..

Just wondering how most of you go about cleaning up an old site. Quite a
large static site, heaps of pages and lots of separate folders for easy
management. However, there are a heap of of images (mostly stored within 3
separate folders) across the entire site that are no longer used. All of
these files are also loaded on the host server.

This will be an initial clean up and then the site will be updated and
developed further. Most of the current pages are staying, a few will go,
and more added.

What would be the quickest way to weed out the files / images etc that are
not being used, without breaking the current pages in the site? Thanks.

--
Nadia
-----------------
*Free Templates *Dropdown Menu Templates*
http://www.DreamweaverResources.com
*Templates - HTML and CSS Validated *
*Free Nav Bar Sets*
*Resources : Ecommerce : SEO Articles*

What would be the quickest way to weed out the files / images etc that are
not being used, without breaking the current pages in the site? Thanks.

--
Nadia

I'd print out the DW Orphaned File Report and bounce it against the same
report from Xenu http://home.snafu.de/tilman/xenulink.html which is
freeware.

Where the two reports agree, I'd kill those files first, on a local copy of
the web site. Then I'd run them both again on the newly slimmer site and
see if they both report any broken links.
After the dust settles from this activity then I'd look at the Orphans they
still report but don't agree upon.

Opposing View- Orphans don't actually do anything detrimental to the site- I
don't think. They just take up disk space. They shouldn't impact user
through put or performance in any way. Someone else check me on this- but
they should just be files that aren't accessed on the disk. So unless you
are having disk quota problems- what the heck? I know personally, I've
caused myself more grief removing things from my PC, and sites- which
shouldn't have been removed- than by leaving stuff alone. You could just
use DW to move the suspect files into an "old_files" directory. That way DW
would manage any connections that still remain and you could forget about
them.

But we humans are compulsive cleaners, some of us anyway...
--
Chip off the Ol' Proc
(that's 'cessor, not 'tology)
www.1GoodReason.Com

Can we be sure it's not 'tology'?

--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver MX
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
news://forums.macromedia.com/macromedia.dreamweaver - THE BEST WAY TO GET
ANSWERS
==================
http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
==================

"Chip off the Ol'Proc" <covertchris (AT) SPAMSUXbigfoot (DOT) com> wrote

But we humans are compulsive cleaners, some of us anyway...
--
Chip off the Ol' Proc
(that's 'cessor, not 'tology)
www.1GoodReason.Com

If the old static site is not already in DW, then connect and download the
site into DW and create a site cache.

Once that is done, you can safely start deleting unused image files in DW,
though you might want to wait until the site redesign is complete. That's a
decision that you will make, based upon things like, the number of files
that will be added during the redesign. You don't want to wait, if you are
going to be adding tons of images. OTOH, if you are not adding many images,
all of the unused images will just get in the way, during the redesign. Just
remember to us DW to delete the unused image files, since, if you
inadvertently try to delete a file that is used in a web page somewhere, DW
will alert you and tell you what file it is used in. The problem is that if
you try a bulk delete, DW does not identify which images are used in which
files, but rather, only the number of files that are used in those files, so
you should only try a bulk delete on files that you are pretty certain, are
not used.

!>>>>> MAC users only! <<<<<
!>>>>> If you are using a Mac and have a basic UNIX knowledge, you can use
the console to write a simple shell script that will use the name of every
jpg or gif file in a certain directory, as the search text in a site-wide
grep and if that text is not found, then the file would be deleted. Such a
script should only take a minute or two to write and test and a couple of
minutes to run. CAUTION - turn off case sensitivity in the grep command.
After you are through running this script on each of the image directories,
be sure to go back into DW and update site cache, before doing anything
else.<<<<<

Next create your templates. On the first pass, most of the content of the
original site will go into a "content" region, for later clean up, though
you will likely also create headers, footers and menus that will appear on
every page and be in uneditable regions. (Some people also create an
editable "junk" region at the top of every template, to have a place to put
supposed junk, before deleting it. That's an extra, mostly unnecessary,
safety measure that I don't advise and that takes a lot of time, since you
have to go back through each file and look at that stuff, before manually
deleting everything in that region. That's only useful if you can't read
html very well and are very afraid that you might accidentally mark an
important section of code for deletion. Just remember that if you should
delete too much, the original file is still out on the server.)

Before applying the templates to any pages, you will need to identify which
sections of code to put into what regions. Like I said, most of the existing
content will go in a large "content" region. DW has an excellent search and
replace feature (or if you are on a Mac and know how to use sed and awk, you
can be even more accurate). Start by searching for known features (like
"<body>" or "</body>" and insert your region tags for headers and footers in
front or behind them, as applies. Temporarily use "&nbsp;" to fill those
regions. The "&nbsp;" will be replaced by the template code when you apply
the template. Sidebars and menus can probably be added either as a part of
the header or immediately after the header. Then use the region tags that
you just inserted site-wide, to identify where to insert the "content"
region tags. After that, you should be able to start applying templates to
individual files.

After all that is done, you can more easily go through the site and clean up
things that didn't come in the way you wanted them. If you did it right, you
will have all the extra stuff, that you didn't want, in an editable region,
where it can be easily deleted.

Hint 1: Copy the entire site to a backup directory, before you start the
search and replace. It might save you having to reload the site from the
server.

Hint 2: If you think that you might be doing this often and don't have a
Mac, then I suggest that you get one and learn how to write shell scripts
and how to use sed and awk. I once modified an entire site, with over 800
static pages, to fit a set of 5 DW templates, in just under 5 hours, using
nothing but shell scripts, sed and awk and that included the time it took to
copy the files between the Mac and a LINUX box, since that was pre-OS-X. It
takes a little time to learn those tools (especially awk), but once you have
mastered them, you will find that they are awesome tools.

Hint 3: If you already have a Mac and are going to be using the UNIX tools
to do the mods, you might want to consider bidding the whole job, rather
than charging by the hour. In the instance mentioned above, other
consultants, who charged by the hour, had estimated in the range of weeks
(lowest was 80 hours) to redo that 800 page site. I knew that I could do the
bulk of it in less than 20 hours and that what was left, would be a snap to
fix, so I bid a flat rate that was equal to 40 hours, making my bid the low
bid, by about 40%. Since I completed the whole job in 5 hours, I would have
lost 35 hours in pay, if I had bid by the hour. When the client commented
about how much he was paying for such little work, I reminded him that he
was not paying an exorbitant amount for the few hours that I worked on his
project, but rather, a very tiny amount for the many years of experience
that I had compiled, that made it possible for me to turn the whole project
around in one day or less than one-tenth the time of any of the other
bidders and for just a little more than half of the best other bid. You can
sell time or knowledge. When you have it, selling knowledge is better for
both you and your client.

Good luck with you redesign.

John Gaver
Action America
(forget everything to contact me direct)

Microsoft: (n) Job security for IT consultants.

On 7/2/04 10:12 AM, in article cc3tte$56j$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com, ":. Nadia
..:" <forums@-ozzie-perrelink.com.au> wrote:

Throwing out a question before I close off for the night..

Just wondering how most of you go about cleaning up an old site. Quite a
large static site, heaps of pages and lots of separate folders for easy
management. However, there are a heap of of images (mostly stored within 3
separate folders) across the entire site that are no longer used. All of
these files are also loaded on the host server.

This will be an initial clean up and then the site will be updated and
developed further. Most of the current pages are staying, a few will go,
and more added.

What would be the quickest way to weed out the files / images etc that are
not being used, without breaking the current pages in the site? Thanks.

This may be urban legend, but I've heard that the SEO spiders look for
unlinked pages and count that against your search placement, on the
assumption they're there just to add key words to the total and therefore an
attempt to "cheat" the system. That might be a good reason to clean out the
site if there are a lot of these unlinked pages. Also, some Webhosts will
cite you for unlinked pages.

----------
In article <cc406q$88r$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com>, "Chip off the Ol'Proc"
<covertchris (AT) SPAMSUXbigfoot (DOT) com> wrote:

What would be the quickest way to weed out the files / images etc that are
not being used, without breaking the current pages in the site? Thanks.

--
Nadia

I'd print out the DW Orphaned File Report and bounce it against the same
report from Xenu http://home.snafu.de/tilman/xenulink.html which is
freeware.

Where the two reports agree, I'd kill those files first, on a local copy of
the web site. Then I'd run them both again on the newly slimmer site and
see if they both report any broken links.
After the dust settles from this activity then I'd look at the Orphans they
still report but don't agree upon.

Opposing View- Orphans don't actually do anything detrimental to the site- I
don't think. They just take up disk space. They shouldn't impact user
through put or performance in any way. Someone else check me on this- but
they should just be files that aren't accessed on the disk. So unless you
are having disk quota problems- what the heck? I know personally, I've
caused myself more grief removing things from my PC, and sites- which
shouldn't have been removed- than by leaving stuff alone. You could just
use DW to move the suspect files into an "old_files" directory. That way DW
would manage any connections that still remain and you could forget about
them.

But we humans are compulsive cleaners, some of us anyway...
--
Chip off the Ol' Proc
(that's 'cessor, not 'tology)
www.1GoodReason.Com

I'm curious....how could a spider find an unlinked page? If nothing links to
it, how would a spider know it's there?


J Fraze wrote:

This may be urban legend, but I've heard that the SEO spiders look for
unlinked pages and count that against your search placement, on the
assumption they're there just to add key words to the total and
therefore an attempt to "cheat" the system. That might be a good
reason to clean out the site if there are a lot of these unlinked
pages. Also, some Webhosts will cite you for unlinked pages.

----------
In article <cc406q$88r$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com>, "Chip off the
Ol'Proc" <covertchris (AT) SPAMSUXbigfoot (DOT) com> wrote:


What would be the quickest way to weed out the files / images etc
that are not being used, without breaking the current pages in the
site? Thanks.

--
Nadia

I'd print out the DW Orphaned File Report and bounce it against the
same report from Xenu http://home.snafu.de/tilman/xenulink.html
which is freeware.

Where the two reports agree, I'd kill those files first, on a local
copy of the web site. Then I'd run them both again on the newly
slimmer site and see if they both report any broken links.
After the dust settles from this activity then I'd look at the
Orphans they still report but don't agree upon.

Opposing View- Orphans don't actually do anything detrimental to the
site- I don't think. They just take up disk space. They shouldn't
impact user through put or performance in any way. Someone else
check me on this- but they should just be files that aren't accessed
on the disk. So unless you are having disk quota problems- what the
heck? I know personally, I've caused myself more grief removing
things from my PC, and sites- which shouldn't have been removed-
than by leaving stuff alone. You could just use DW to move the
suspect files into an "old_files" directory. That way DW would
manage any connections that still remain and you could forget about
them.

But we humans are compulsive cleaners, some of us anyway...
--
Chip off the Ol' Proc
(that's 'cessor, not 'tology)
www.1GoodReason.Com

Actually, even if thrue, that would only apply to html. If the images are
simple jpegs and gifs I presume it would do no harm to just leave them
there. If you could live with the clutter. (I doubt I could.)

----------
In article <cc4a8h$les$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com>, "J Fraze"
<webmaster (AT) hotaccent (DOT) com> wrote:

This may be urban legend, but I've heard that the SEO spiders look for
unlinked pages and count that against your search placement, on the
assumption they're there just to add key words to the total and therefore an
attempt to "cheat" the system. That might be a good reason to clean out the
site if there are a lot of these unlinked pages. Also, some Webhosts will
cite you for unlinked pages.

----------
In article <cc406q$88r$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com>, "Chip off the Ol'Proc"
covertchris (AT) SPAMSUXbigfoot (DOT) com> wrote:


What would be the quickest way to weed out the files / images etc that are
not being used, without breaking the current pages in the site? Thanks.

--
Nadia

I'd print out the DW Orphaned File Report and bounce it against the same
report from Xenu http://home.snafu.de/tilman/xenulink.html which is
freeware.

Where the two reports agree, I'd kill those files first, on a local copy of
the web site. Then I'd run them both again on the newly slimmer site and
see if they both report any broken links.
After the dust settles from this activity then I'd look at the Orphans they
still report but don't agree upon.

Opposing View- Orphans don't actually do anything detrimental to the site- I
don't think. They just take up disk space. They shouldn't impact user
through put or performance in any way. Someone else check me on this- but
they should just be files that aren't accessed on the disk. So unless you
are having disk quota problems- what the heck? I know personally, I've
caused myself more grief removing things from my PC, and sites- which
shouldn't have been removed- than by leaving stuff alone. You could just
use DW to move the suspect files into an "old_files" directory. That way DW
would manage any connections that still remain and you could forget about
them.

But we humans are compulsive cleaners, some of us anyway...
--
Chip off the Ol' Proc
(that's 'cessor, not 'tology)
www.1GoodReason.Com

Actually, I think it was talking about pages that link into the main site,
but have no links back to them from elsewhere in the site. I believe it was
considered acceptable to have a doorway page or two, but using a lot of them
just to add keywords was considered cheating. Anyway, everything I'm saying
today is turning out to be wrong, so just ignore me.

----------
In article <cc4agt$lqg$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com>, "Mad Dog" <md (AT) mdp (DOT) com>
wrote:

I'm curious....how could a spider find an unlinked page? If nothing links to
it, how would a spider know it's there?


J Fraze wrote:
This may be urban legend, but I've heard that the SEO spiders look for
unlinked pages and count that against your search placement, on the
assumption they're there just to add key words to the total and
therefore an attempt to "cheat" the system. That might be a good
reason to clean out the site if there are a lot of these unlinked
pages. Also, some Webhosts will cite you for unlinked pages.

----------
In article <cc406q$88r$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com>, "Chip off the
Ol'Proc" <covertchris (AT) SPAMSUXbigfoot (DOT) com> wrote:


What would be the quickest way to weed out the files / images etc
that are not being used, without breaking the current pages in the
site? Thanks.

--
Nadia

I'd print out the DW Orphaned File Report and bounce it against the
same report from Xenu http://home.snafu.de/tilman/xenulink.html
which is freeware.

Where the two reports agree, I'd kill those files first, on a local
copy of the web site. Then I'd run them both again on the newly
slimmer site and see if they both report any broken links.
After the dust settles from this activity then I'd look at the
Orphans they still report but don't agree upon.

Opposing View- Orphans don't actually do anything detrimental to the
site- I don't think. They just take up disk space. They shouldn't
impact user through put or performance in any way. Someone else
check me on this- but they should just be files that aren't accessed
on the disk. So unless you are having disk quota problems- what the
heck? I know personally, I've caused myself more grief removing
things from my PC, and sites- which shouldn't have been removed-
than by leaving stuff alone. You could just use DW to move the
suspect files into an "old_files" directory. That way DW would
manage any connections that still remain and you could forget about
them.

But we humans are compulsive cleaners, some of us anyway...
--
Chip off the Ol' Proc
(that's 'cessor, not 'tology)
www.1GoodReason.Com

No problem. Consider yourself ignored.

(:})


J Fraze wrote:

Actually, I think it was talking about pages that link into the main
site, but have no links back to them from elsewhere in the site. I
believe it was considered acceptable to have a doorway page or two,
but using a lot of them just to add keywords was considered cheating.
Anyway, everything I'm saying today is turning out to be wrong, so
just ignore me.

----------
In article <cc4agt$lqg$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com>, "Mad Dog"
md (AT) mdp (DOT) com> wrote:


I'm curious....how could a spider find an unlinked page? If nothing
links to it, how would a spider know it's there?


J Fraze wrote:
This may be urban legend, but I've heard that the SEO spiders look
for unlinked pages and count that against your search placement, on
the assumption they're there just to add key words to the total and
therefore an attempt to "cheat" the system. That might be a good
reason to clean out the site if there are a lot of these unlinked
pages. Also, some Webhosts will cite you for unlinked pages.

----------
In article <cc406q$88r$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com>, "Chip off the
Ol'Proc" <covertchris (AT) SPAMSUXbigfoot (DOT) com> wrote:


What would be the quickest way to weed out the files / images etc
that are not being used, without breaking the current pages in the
site? Thanks.

--
Nadia

I'd print out the DW Orphaned File Report and bounce it against the
same report from Xenu http://home.snafu.de/tilman/xenulink.html
which is freeware.

Where the two reports agree, I'd kill those files first, on a local
copy of the web site. Then I'd run them both again on the newly
slimmer site and see if they both report any broken links.
After the dust settles from this activity then I'd look at the
Orphans they still report but don't agree upon.

Opposing View- Orphans don't actually do anything detrimental to
the site- I don't think. They just take up disk space. They
shouldn't impact user through put or performance in any way.
Someone else check me on this- but they should just be files that
aren't accessed on the disk. So unless you are having disk quota
problems- what the heck? I know personally, I've caused myself
more grief removing things from my PC, and sites- which shouldn't
have been removed- than by leaving stuff alone. You could just
use DW to move the suspect files into an "old_files" directory.
That way DW would manage any connections that still remain and you
could forget about them.

But we humans are compulsive cleaners, some of us anyway...
--
Chip off the Ol' Proc
(that's 'cessor, not 'tology)
www.1GoodReason.Com

I'm still puzzled by how such pages could ever be found. Links are
'one-way' streets....

--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver MX
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
news://forums.macromedia.com/macromedia.dreamweaver - THE BEST WAY TO GET
ANSWERS
==================
http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
==================

"J Fraze" <webmaster (AT) hotaccent (DOT) com> wrote

Actually, I think it was talking about pages that link into the main site,
but have no links back to them from elsewhere in the site. I believe it
was
considered acceptable to have a doorway page or two, but using a lot of
them
just to add keywords was considered cheating. Anyway, everything I'm
saying
today is turning out to be wrong, so just ignore me.