Title: why close?
Last modified: August 20, 2016

---

# why close?

 *  Resolved [ramonjosegn](https://wordpress.org/support/users/ramonjosegn/)
 * (@ramonjosegn)
 * [13 years, 2 months ago](https://wordpress.org/support/topic/why-close/)
 * Hello, I think it’s a little early to leave the plugin develope, the truth is
   that I was using it without problems, although I have not seen a great improvement
   on the website, do not understand why you leave the project because other cache
   plugins are really complicated to configure and generate many problems with many
   themes, well, I hope they change their minds, while it is true that you need 
   some additional adjustments, should take a look at **[Vitamin plugin](http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/vitamin/)**,
   whose operation has never been great (a lot of functions I no need), but whose
   cache functions are really interesting, regrettably I fear that the author also
   left the project, I will have to re-install Flexicache but causes problems with
   my current theme 🙁
 * [http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/codespanker-cache/](http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/codespanker-cache/)

Viewing 2 replies - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)

 *  Plugin Author [Spencer Cameron-Morin](https://wordpress.org/support/users/spencercameron/)
 * (@spencercameron)
 * [13 years, 2 months ago](https://wordpress.org/support/topic/why-close/#post-3617614)
 * Hi ramonjosegn,
 * The plugin can speed up a site with a slow database server immensely with basically
   no setup or configuration. However, sites looking for more performance can easily
   get it by using an alternative caching method. The ease of use this plugin provides
   comes at a cost. That cost is speed. The reason I developed this plugin is I 
   was curious to know whether or not it would fill a void for people wanting simplicity
   of setup and were willing to trade some responsiveness for it.
 * I’m noticing many users installing and then removing Codespanker Cache fairly
   quickly. This leads me to believe they may not be that interested in the tradeoff
   inherent in this plugin’s architecture.
 * When I tested your site in a previous help thread, I noted about an 80% decrease
   in load time when caching was enabled. That’s pretty awesome compared to what
   you had, but it can be even faster using more direct caching methods.
 * Ultimately, the service costs money to maintain and it doesn’t appear there is
   much interest in it. 🙂
 *  Thread Starter [ramonjosegn](https://wordpress.org/support/users/ramonjosegn/)
 * (@ramonjosegn)
 * [13 years, 2 months ago](https://wordpress.org/support/topic/why-close/#post-3617632)
 * It is a pity.
 * I believe that the plugin was lacking some options like being able to enable 
   gzip, prefetch links and other similar points for speed.
 * Really the users do not want to be complicated by configurations (Quickcache 
   de facto is the most popular cache plugin at present), but yes they want to have
   some control and knowledge what happens behind the plugins.

Viewing 2 replies - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)

The topic ‘why close?’ is closed to new replies.

 * ![](https://s.w.org/plugins/geopattern-icon/codespanker-cache_202020.svg)
 * [Codespanker Cache](https://wordpress.org/plugins/codespanker-cache/)
 * [Support Threads](https://wordpress.org/support/plugin/codespanker-cache/)
 * [Active Topics](https://wordpress.org/support/plugin/codespanker-cache/active/)
 * [Unresolved Topics](https://wordpress.org/support/plugin/codespanker-cache/unresolved/)
 * [Reviews](https://wordpress.org/support/plugin/codespanker-cache/reviews/)

 * 2 replies
 * 2 participants
 * Last reply from: [ramonjosegn](https://wordpress.org/support/users/ramonjosegn/)
 * Last activity: [13 years, 2 months ago](https://wordpress.org/support/topic/why-close/#post-3617632)
 * Status: resolved