Web Hosting Forum | Lunarpages


*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?



Login with username, password and session length
February 09, 2012, 09:11:35 PM

Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: SiteMap: Do I really need one? What if a tool is asking for 777 permission  (Read 488 times)
LegendsTech
Space Explorer
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« on: August 06, 2010, 10:14:29 AM »

My wife and I have an established website http://www.legendsofamerica.com that enjoys top 5 rankings in many of our keywords (Old West, Route 66, etc).  Being self taught, when we first started the site in 2003 we did not adhere to proper naming conventions and had a mix of Upper/Lower case html file names.  Although we have been adjusting those over the past couple of years a little at a time, we recently went through a massive rename of many of our pages that took care of the rest.  Our site has almost 5,000 pages with even more images.

That brings me to my question.  We took a large hit in traffic with the mass changes, even though the most important pages have redirects.   We are thinking that a sitemap would help things tremendously, but I'm not totally convinced we need one? (need some opinions). 

My next question is about whether to use the free sitemap generator provided by Google, or the unlimited paid for version of http://www.xml-sitemaps.com/

And finally, when looking through the instructions on xml-sitemaps, it appears to be asking us to set permission level 777 on the public_html folder?  Isn't that a bad thing? (we are on a Dedicated Server with Lunarpages, so there is not a concern of being on a shared server)
Logged
MrPhil
Berserker Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5083



« Reply #1 on: August 09, 2010, 06:24:32 AM »

Those are dangerous instructions (to set a directory or file to 777) unless you know exactly what you're doing. If an (honest) application wants "777" directories, the author wants to be sure that the program can write to that directory. He was just lazy, or else he'd write a long explanation like this. If PHP is running as "owner" (say, via suPHP), 755 is sufficient. If it's running in your "group", 775 is what's needed. Only if it's running as "other/world" would you have to have 777. In such cases, you normally would try to reset it to 775 or 755 when the program was done writing files (if possible). On a dedicated server, it may not make much difference (there are no other users sharing the server), but it may be better to play it safe and grant only the minimum permissions needed for the application to do its job.
Logged

Rithik
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


WWW
« Reply #2 on: August 26, 2010, 03:14:46 AM »

Its related to read, write and excute permissions.

    * Read 4 - Allowed to read files
    * Write 2 - Allowed to write/modify files
    * eXecute1 - Read/write/delete/modify/directory

You can set your permissons based on these examples:

7               5              5
r+w+x      r+w+x      r+w+x
4+2+1     4+2+1     4+2+1  = 777

7              5              5
r+w+x      r+x           r+x
4+2+1     4+0+1    4+0+1  = 755

Hope it helps you....
Logged

MrPhil
Berserker Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5083



« Reply #3 on: August 26, 2010, 09:05:55 AM »

Assuming that there's nothing nefarious going on, and the lazy idiot who wrote the instructions just wanted to be sure his program could write a file in the root directory, 755 is enough. LP's security software (suPHP) won't even permit 777 (world writable) for directories, or 666 for files. Your program will be running as "owner", so it only needs "owner" to be writable.

Quote
we did not adhere to proper naming conventions and had a mix of Upper/Lower case html file names
What's wrong with mixed case names? So long as you get into the habit of being consistent in how you capitalize files and references to them, you'll be fine. Linux servers are "case sensitive", and MyPicture.JPG is considered a different file than mypicture.jpg (even though a Windows server is case-insensitive and will treat them as the same). Or were you referring to some names all lowercase and others ALL UPPERCASE? Even so, it really doesn't matter, unless you expect visitors to be manually typing in the names. Normally no one ever types in a file name, but uses a search engine result or a bookmarked name.

Note that when you change file names (which you shouldn't have done), your search results will suffer for a while, until the new names are indexed and have been up a while. If you don't have a lot of names, a 301 redirect could be done so search engines and visitors don't get 404s, but if there are thousands of names, that becomes infeasible.
Logged

Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to: