Monthly feels more like a service than a product and I think of desktop software as a product.
But I realize Desktop software pricing is evolving so this may just be old school thinking on my part.
Also, if I'm a Mac user (I am) I expect to be able to buy / pay through the app store. I know it sucks because Apple takes a huge cut but there is a level of trust (misplaced or not) and ease of use that comes with the app store. I am much more likely to use an app if it is in there. Just like on Linux I am much more likely to use an app if it is in a package manager.
Speaking of that, I don't know what desktop framework was used but, is there anything preventing a Linux version?
We're not wedded to a price structure, although we're rolling with monthly for now. I'm pretty sure through weight of demand that we'll need to add Yearly plans in the next few months.
There's nothing preventing a Linux version (it's built in Electron) other than demand really. We'll do it if enough people want it, but we have a bunch of other features on our roadmap that are currently a higher priority.
I can't count how many apps I've paid for but I don't have installed right now because I lost a hard drive and my license keys with it.
Though I'm guessing with monthly billing it is more a username / password thing for you vs a key. (I haven't tried it yet, sorry).
The second benefit is not having to give my billing info to yet another company.
I'm not unlikely to install an app not from the app store. But I'd say I'm... complete guess here... 30% more likely to install it if it is in the app store.
And I can also say that if I have the choice between the two (same software on the app store and off), I will always do the one in the app store because of the previously listed benefits.
Yeah we use a username/password so there's no issue with losing a license key.
Also, while Creative Cloud is paid monthly, individual plans have a minimum term of 12 months. If you cancel, you have to pay out 50% of the contract term (unless you prepaid for the year, in which case there are no refunds).
As futile as it is, I'd rather see the concept go away than see it further enshrined in subscription services.
If we don’t expect software to have any updates at all, we can go back to one time fees.
I refuse to buy software that is subscription based. The closest to this that I find OK is PHPStorm which has a hybrid model where if you pay for a year you get to keep the version you installed at the beginning of your subscription (or after a year of monthly payments have been made).
I don't expect companies to work on the software for free, if there is an upgrade worth upgrading I am prepared to pay for it.
It's main differentiating factors: 1. Scale – it can comfortably crawl 500,000+ page websites despite being a desktop program. 2. Reporting – it does a lot of data manipulation and processing so you don't have to. 3. Visualization – it has tons of useful graphs, including the Crawl Maps, which help you visualise site structure.
Our aim was to give it the reporting capability of a SaaS crawler, with the convenience of a desktop crawler.
Looking forward to hearing your feedback on our new product. Thanks, HN community!
- Why require the email confirmation before using the software? Not really necessary, is it?
- No Umlauts in project name?
- Standard/advanced settings switcher is confusing
- Crawl Maps is not linked from the "Product" dropdown
- "Recent audits" shows finished and queued ones, but not running ones (which also have no menu point)
- Super simple option to limit crawl to "internal" URLs would be nice (or did I miss it?)
- "Filtered URL Lists" is a strange navigation option, above the main selection especially
- Why no endless scrolling in tables? This is what a desktop app should do better than browsers
Nice tool!
- Email confirmation is required for the username/password, which is how free and trial licenses are controlled, and ultimately how paid licenses are doled out. So we need it for the licensing.
- No special characters at all! Excepts periods. Sorry!
- Agreed, we need to improve the settings switcher.
- Crawl Maps is not linked - you mean on the website right? I'll fix that.
- Running audits show on the main Dashboard, seemed kinda overkill to put it on Recent Audits as well. No?
- You can switch of 'Check external' in the Advanced Settings. Kinda 'hidden away' to keep the main settings UI cleaner (otherwise where does it end?!)
- "Filtered URL Lists" - they are there because people want them ('a big list of all the URLs') and kept missing them in our usability tests!
- Why no endless scrolling in tables? It's not easy to do because the data is written to disk, rather than stored in RAM (which is the reason it can typically crawl more pages), so it needs to go and fetch/filter/etc... every time.
> Email confirmation is required for the username/password, which is how free and trial licenses are controlled, and ultimately how paid licenses are doled out. So we need it for the licensing.
If you are interested in getting more free users into the app to try it, I would suggest to rework the licencing stuff a bit to enable the usage without email, but at least without confirmation. Should be worth the effort, and you can still require login when swicthing from free/trial to paid.
> Crawl Maps is not linked - you mean on the website right? I'll fix that.
Yep, no link in the feature dropdown.
> Running audits show on the main Dashboard, seemed kinda overkill to put it on Recent Audits as well. No?
Maybe. I like structure, so was expecting it to be shown a level down from the Dashboard somewhere as well.
> You can switch of 'Check external' in the Advanced Settings. Kinda 'hidden away' to keep the main settings UI cleaner (otherwise where does it end?!)
Ok, I think I am biased because I usually use a tool that is "internal only" by default.
> - "Filtered URL Lists" - they are there because people want them ('a big list of all the URLs') and kept missing them in our usability tests!
Umm, ok. "Crawled URLs" maybe?
> Why no endless scrolling in tables? It's not easy to do because the data is written to disk, rather than stored in RAM (which is the reason it can typically crawl more pages), so it needs to go and fetch/filter/etc... every time.
If some websites can do it with a request to the server each time the next results are loaded, I am sure you can also do that with whatever local database you use ;)
And I would not want to get my works 100Mb banned by google. This is where services like deep crawl come in to play I can set up my sites to be crawled at night and look at the reports in the morning.
And another problem I found is desktop crawlers are very resource hungry at one small agency we had two striped down dedicated machines just to run crawls as the risk of causing a crash was to high
But Sitebulb is not resource hungry in the same was as other desktop crawlers. It saves to disk instead of using RAM, so you don't experience the same limitations.
I'm not sure what you mean about Google. There is no link between Sitebulb and Google - it doesn't visit Google at all, so there is no risk of banning. Using it on your 100 Mb work line would be ideal.
On cloud software that's simply not possible, due to the way that everything is scheduled.
There are a few other small things, such as being able to view Audits offline (what we call 'train mode').
The cost structure can be a big limiting factor though, especially for smaller companies. Sitebulb effectively remove all limitations around number of domains, number of projects, total number of URLs crawled etc...
This depends on implementation. If the architecture is modern and well thought, using dynamic scaling or even AWS Lambda, the result should be available much faster on the cloud software due to ability to parallelization. You can only have so much network bandwith / CPU power locally and if you need to crawl hundreds of pages to get your result, it matters a lot.
Disclaimer: I'm building a SaaS tool for SEO which also involves page crawling.
As someone who works in cloud software this makes me cringe a little.
I have no doubt this is how existing cloud SEO crawlers work but with elastic scaling, web sockets, and serverless there is no reason why this has to be true.
It is not a limitation of cloud software. It is a sign of devs and/or product owners deciding making instant results is not a priority for the product.
Edit: I hear that a lot from industries that are not intimately familiar with web apps. "You can't do that on the cloud"... a typical web software engineer will not be able to do it but there are people out there who can. They are more expensive than your typical developer but if depending on your product they are worth it.
Why would you care if the site is available in the Internet and you can't control who is browsing it?
This is a valid argument only for internal websites which are not a subject for SEO anyway.
Their honesty bought me! Nice going bros.
You might like these as well: https://sitebulb.com/release-notes/
I will say the cost gives me hesitation but you've put a lot of work into it so I understand the justification.
For the visualization, does the crawl map limit the connections? I was expecting to see more of a web with pages linked from the entire site. Can you tell us more about that?
Thanks
Regarding Crawl Maps, yeah it does have some limitations on, which I've written about here - https://sitebulb.com/resources/guides/crawl-maps-faqs/
Although from your comment I think you might be thinking it is a link map, rather than a crawl map. So with the Crawl Map it is mapping out how each URL/node was found when the crawler traversed the site. So each node will only ever have one edge/link.
A link map ends up a LOT more messy, although it's on our roadmap to try and build one of these too!
It's really hard to make sense of full link graph visualisations. I'm talking about this in an upcoming conference presentation. We should share notes :)
I'd love for us to come up with some sort of solution for it, I just don't know how we'd do it!
SL presentation I assume?
I've written a more comprehensive answer to this here: https://sitebulb.com/resources/guides/how-is-sitebulb-differ...
EDIT:
And after about 3hours of crawl, this is what I got (and no way to resume it):
>Audit Stopped! >The audit stopped early because: Maximum Crawl depth limit of 50 reached
>WARNING: Audit Paused ! The audit is incomplete and did not finish properly.
In addition SF works on Ubuntu, which is another point in its favour.
We think it's a case of horses for courses. Sitebulb has the potential to save you a ton of time when auditing and reporting. If you don't do a lot of that then it might not be a good option for you. If you do, that's where a lot of the value lies.
There's a fully featured 2 week trial to give it a proper go, and the monthly billing means you have the option to switch it on/off as you need it.
If you want me to take a closer look send the subdomain over to support@sitebulb.com and I'll see what's going on.
I am not exactly an expert on Avast and this particular error but perhaps someone here would like to know about this.
i.e. it's a false positive
It's a really nice product BTW...good job.
Also Sitebulb is for both Windows and Mac.
The main difference from Screaming Frog (which is legitimately awesome) is the reporting. Once it has finished crawling it will do a lot of pre-processing for you and build graphs, lists of hints, etc... I've written a more comprehensive answer to this here:
https://sitebulb.com/resources/guides/how-is-sitebulb-differ...
