More Bigger & Better Publishing Woes

(Gavin Dudeney) #1


I swear uploading a site is getting worse, not better. I’ve been trying to get mine uploaded since last night - left it overnight in the end, but it didn’t work. I’m now reduced to doing individual pages one at a time. I’m getting ‘time outs’, ‘can’t connects’ and more. But the most annoying thing is this:

  1. publishing a page and RW declaring there are 39 elements to upload
  2. having that publishing process hang at 38 elements
  3. restarting the process immediately (without changing a thing) and being told there are 453 elements to upload

Can someone explain how that can possibly happen? Where did the other 400 elements suddenly come from?

I’d export and use Filezilla, but the export seems unable to actually export the whole site - so when I did that, half the elements didn’t work. I’m no novice - I used to hand code in the mid-nineties, have set up and run servers, etc. So I do know something that is broken when I see it.

As I write, RW is uploading some .doc files from resources - these have no relationship whatsoever with the page I am uploading. I love RW, but publishing is so broken it takes all the fun out of the rest of it. Can’t upload a project file, I’m afraid - it’s too big.

But please, please, please could you sort this out before you add in any unnecessary bells and whistles next time round?



(Gavin Dudeney) #2

It’s that bad, I’m replying to myself…

I have a video background on my front page. It’s been uploaded about 30 times so far. It’s currently being uploaded again as part of publishing a page which has no connection with the video at all, nor any connection with the front page.

(steve bee) #3

Most publish issues are due to things not going right at the server end, while most other FTP clients cope with these issues RW tends not to do so well, so it hangs. Often it tells you it’s hung on the last element, but I used to find that wasn’t actually the case, only what RW reported.

If you search these forums you will find hundreds of threads with thousands of suggestions to improve things, so I’ll not repeat them here, just say do a search.

Failing anything getting a fix for you, just export the site to a local folder and upload via FTP.

Regards the 2nd post about the video. Videos files are typically big, and this will only make matter worse if your publishing connection is a bit flakey, so make sure the video file, and if poss all images are warehoused. This will dramatically speed up your publishing experience.

(steve bee) #4

Is the site in question the one linked to in your profile?

I’m away at my holiday home this weekend, it’s in the heart of the Donegal mountains and internet is really slow. I’ve been trying to load your homepage for about 5 minutes now, everything is loaded but it’s still pulling down the header area, which I assume is your video?

How big is the video file? This might be the root of your issues.

EDIT: OK, got the video. It’s 16mg. Far to big. You need to get that down massively, by about 70% I’d say. I’ve used videos in headers up to 8mg before, and these caused issues, even on fast connections. I’d try to aim for 5mg max. Reduce the dimension size and have the browser scale it up. Cover up the lower quality by blurring the whole thing, or some other visual trick.

The video seems to part of a header area made with Impact? So I’m assuming there are other elements to the complete header?

The other thing to bear in mind is that videos won’t play on most mobile devices, so depending on your target audience you might find that most can’t see it anyway. A great workaround for this is to select a dozen or so frames and convert to an animated gif? You’ll get the moving image effect you want across almost all devices then.

Bottom line: Videos look great, but generally cause more problems than they’re worth.

(Gavin Dudeney) #5

Thanks for your thoughts - and your time. I’m removing the video today, anyway. And yet…

Even if I am using a video, RW shouldn’t have to upload it myriad times when I’m uploading pages on which it is not used. It also shouldn’t vacillate quite so wildly between claiming there are 39 elements to upload on a page and then over 400. If one video file confuses the publishing process so much, is there any point going on?

(steve bee) #6

Ya, that one gets noted and asked a lot on here. Why does it suddenly need to upload more files than previously? Dunno. I tend to just trust RW and Stacks though, assume they know what they need to do and just let them do it. I think there have been a few occurrences when more files are getting uploaded than needed, but in most cases once the devs start to deconstruct what is going on, it often turns out that a lot more has gone on behind the scene than even the experienced RW users realise, so lots of stuff need updating.

If you are seeing it alot it’s sometimes a good idea to clear out the server and do a full republish. That can often get things back in sync.

If one video file confuses the publishing process so much, is there any point going on?

Not sure I understand what you mean? Is there any point going on with RW? Everyone is different, with different expectations. There are people like me out there who make money building sites for others using RW and get along swimmingly (else we’d use something else), and there are those who use it to build one single website for themselves and have nothing but problems.

What I would say though, in repeat to what I said at the top, I suspect our issue is a flakey connection to your server, which RW has never been great at coping with. It’s trying to upload a big file but failing, and that is crashing the whole thing. Warehouse the video and you might find that problem reslolved.

(Gavin Dudeney) #7


I’ve got way bigger files than a piffling 16mb video on that server - and FTP way bigger files both ways every day. I have a strong connection, and FileZilla copes with large transfers to and from the server every day. If RW can’t transfer a 16mb video (actually it can - it’s done it about 60 times already today whilst attaching it to various pages in my site which don’t actually feature the video) then it’s a pretty pointless piece of web design software.

I design a lot of sites in RW, too, and get paid for them - but the file changing nightmares and the FTP nightmares continue. They eat into my professional time, and my personal time. For a piece of software which costs a bit (and quite a bit more if you actually want to do something with it, it’s unacceptable.

I know it’s not the done thing to criticise - or perhaps it’s the done thing to whistle through the issues, but some days RW really doesn’t perform like a professional piece of software at all.

I do believe I could warehouse all my files, but RW would carry on using up half my day on a process which should take twenty minutes. I appreciate your time - but this not a server issue, not a video issue, not a connection issue - this is an issue of something that doesn’t perform a core function well at all.


(steve bee) #8

Don’t get me wrong, I’m no fan boy of anything, I am one of RW’s biggest critics on here, but I’m also a realist. RW publishing has never coped with even slightly flakey server connections: As said, when other FTP clients fly RW falters. It’s just the way it is.

I’m, not trying to fluff up RW, just trying to help. You sound like you’ve had enough of RW and will be moving on, fair enough. Good luck with whatever alternative you go to.

(Rob D) #9

I totally sympathize with Gavin. My experiences with RW publishing are exactly same.

While I agree with Steve’s comments and tips, I must say that the whole publishing engine in RW should be the first and only problem on RMS developers list of problems to fix. What’s the point in introducing new features when one of the most important features is broken and dysfunctional for many years, throughout many versions?

I stopped using RW’s publishing altogether couple of years ago. I just export locally and use Transmit to upload and do all the maintenance of my sites on a server. That process has never failed me – not even once. I can’t put up with all the nonsense of RW’s publishing, no matter how much more inconvenient it is to publish manually. In the end, I am saving time anyway, because my way of publishing is predictable and never fails.

So, please, RMS developers, get your *hit together and fix that damned publishing once and for all. This is your greatest failure and shame since the beginning of Rapid Weaver…

(Gary) #10

Absolutely agree. The FTP should be ditched from RW and perhaps a new feature could be added. Look how fast that Blocs App is developing because the single developer who creates it spends every hour adding new features and not trying to fix the FTP because Blocs App has no FTP. It is a flawed strategy to include FTP in a web development app IMHO.

The user solution is just to Export and ditch the inbuilt FTP and use a free or paid FTP app that will work flawlessly 100% of the time, be quicker with none of that 6 settings nonsense and can also be used to transfer images for image warehousing.

(David ) #11

“I just export locally and use Transmit to upload”

Agreed this works well.

Life is give and take.

Dreamweaver has more features and is also more expensive than RW but its FTP works better but not as good as Transmit or Filezilla.

(Gavin Dudeney) #12


I started with Dreamweaver when it came out, and abandoned it around 2004 when I stopped having to make websites for a living. I have to say I found their FTP extremely reliable, and - working as a team - the check in / out system robust and very useful with a team of twelve working on a large site.

It’s not going to stop me using RW, because the stacks people make are generally top notch and save me a load of time now that web design is not my main job, but simply part of the work I do. I have to say, though, that it seems to me to be a pretty fundamental aspect of a web design package that one be a able to upload the site one has created…


(David ) #13


Wow Dreamweaver has been out for a very long time - you must be very

It has been a while since I used Dreamweaver but I never liked their FTP
client software. Did it basically work ? Yes. but not as well as Transmit
which I use now. Of course maybe DW FTP has improved meanwhile?

Webdesign is not my main job I am a craft business person who likes control
of as much of what we do as possible.

“I have to say, though, that it seems to me to be a pretty fundamental
aspect of a web design package that one be a able to upload the site one
has created…”

You may be correct - but to me it is a feature as opposed to a fundamental
part - at least on the one person level.

If you have a team you probably must have a way to work smoothly together
with DW type software.

I don’t like free software and I am not comfortable with subscription
software so RW is something that I can work with that is almost free. Is
it perfect - no Is support fast - no does it get most of what I need done

Good luck with your current project.