Is Wizzley Jumping on the Responsive Bandwagon?

About two weeks ago, the Squidoo community had polarizing /mixed reactions over the site's newly introduced responsive layout. After a few days, Squidoo HQ announced that traffic was up and conversion was better. 

Just this morning, I checked my e-mail and there's a Seekyt newsletter. The site has also updated its look and design. 

Question: Is Wizzley following suit? 

One excited Wizzley author here. 

We've installed a responsive design several months ago. Check us out on a cell or tablet.  

You can minimize your browser window and watch wizzley change size too. 

I just played with my browser window and the wizzley article did follow along nicely, minus the side-bar.

It didn't work for the wizzley forum or my stats window.

Thank you all for the response. :)

I will say, I think Wizzley did a better job of implementing the new dynamic layout than Squidoo did.

Squidoo still has an inconsistency between the way the lens looks in the workshop (which is still in a fixed-width layout, and uses a completely different font) and on the published page.  I've contacted them about it, and it's still not fixed, but part of me wonders...why did they even make the change in font to begin with?  I can understand that it's tough to reprogram the workshop but the font inconsistency really puzzles me.

I'll stop short of saying that I think Wizzley is universally better but I will say that there are a number of ways in which I prefer Wizzley.

Also, there's another type of "responsiveness" that I think Wizzley excels in: page load time, and delays with editing.  Most of them are faster...a sole exception is when I add a lot of hyperlinks to a text module, Wizzley seems to really hang on that (presumably performing some sort of checks before saving the module?).

WOW! Thanks for the flowers, Alex! 

We should have you over for a cup of Panda dung tea!  

Thanks guys :-)

Wizzley is responsive on all pages that external visitors may see. Making pages responsible involves quite some extra work and extra code, so we rather put all of our efforts into making the "public" area as good as possible, instead of offering a mediocre responsive design for *all* pages.

cazort, you're right: when saving a text module, all links are validated. That's what takes so long. Depending on the target URL this validation may be really fast, or it may take several seconds per link. There's not too much we can do about it, since it mainly depends on the response time of the other server. A solution to speed up the process for text modules that contain an abundance of links could be simply checking the first 10 or 20 links, and dismiss the remaining ones. But that doesn't seem a proper way of handling it ... however, I really know what you mean: On Pagewizz, I have published a list of 100 free image resources. Saving this text module gets me nightmares .

I have an idea that may speed up link validation, although it would take some work and add some complexity to your code to implement.

I frequently edit and re-edit my modules quite a lot.  It seems like it would make sense that if a link had been checked in the past 24 hours, it would not need to be re-validated.

You could implement a database that would validate links, and then flag them with a timestamp of when they had last been validated.  Then, whenever you check a new link, you'd first search the database.  If the link were in the database, you'd check the timestamp, and return a positive value if the link had been validated, and re-check the link otherwise.  If it were not found in the database, then you could check the link manually.  Either way, update the database.

This would lead to much faster response times on the second- or subsequent edits, but would still validate all the links (and also re-check them if the page is edited later).