Honestly, There are no performance issues since the posts in a thread are never called up all at once, these threads and the posts within them are all indexed, the servers hosting these sites aren't 20 years old, and none of these threads have 10000 posts in them. It may be a pain for a user to wade through several pages of replies to find a specific post but forum performance itself isn't affected for anyone else.
C'mon guys it's 2010 not 1990, get with the times ;-)
I am not sure I understand this.
This is not my sandbox or my rules.
I am only repeating what has been written by those in authority on this board.
I would advise that we try to play by their rules, since we all agreed to the TOS when signing in.
I personally respect MWD and thank her for letting us have this place.
Lance, I'm not sure I understand why you quoted me and what you're specifically asking? Was there an issue with what I had posted? I haven't lied or misrepresented the truth on forum performance issues, I have seen other forums outside of this website with threads that have post counts in the 1000+ and 10000+ mark, a thread with a few hundred posts is not going to cause a performance issue for the entire forum.
My post was specifically concerning the idea that a few hundred posts in a specific thread may cause performance issues for the entire discussion forum, and to repeat what I said, it won't.
Whatever rules you were referring to I'm sure I haven't broken so I don't understand how that got mixed up with what I was saying. I also haven't disrespected MWD or this website, I've been a contributing member for nearly 2 years. I'm also an I.T. Professional, work in the "biz", and have a clue as to what I'm talking about.
Please don't quote me out of context and put words in my mouth, that to me is disrespectful.
I'm also an I.T. Professional, work in the "biz", and have a clue as to what I'm talking about.
Maybe they are hosting it off a 1995 era, out-of-service thin-node with 512MB of RAM and an old OS version with limited file caching? LOL Just kidding... because then performance would suck generally.
M-47,W-40,No kids D-filed 5/27/2010 Piecing - 10/21/2010 -=Soon to be banned=-
I did NOT disrespect you. I put no words in your mouth. You responded to my post, I responded to yours.
I can only say that there have been performance issues on this board IMHO.
Again the way that the OWNERS of this board ask us to play, is not for us to judge. Maybe they know something we don't know. I was only pointing out the rules as they have been presented.
I will stand by what I said. I am sorry you feel that I misrepresented you. Not my intention.
THe board does not work well when the threads are large. When things are not working well mechanically, the administrator has to rework the board. Please help things move smoothly by starting a new thread after you reach about 100 posts.
sg Love is PATIENT, love is KIND, LOVE never fails / DB since 2001
THe board does not work well when the threads are large. When things are not working well mechanically, the administrator has to rework the board. Please help things move smoothly by starting a new thread after you reach about 100 posts.
Thank you SG.
Is there some way to have this policy stated where everyone might read it?
>>"Hi everyone, threads needed to be locked because folks are not locking their own threads or starting new ones when their threads get too big."
The question becomes, Why were threads over 100 locked in the infidelity forum & some that were much larger left alone in the other forums?
I think you can speak to Puppy and Allen A about this issue if they ever return, apparently the rework may have more to do with censoring certain posts and opinions rather than the forum performance. It's hard on both ends, users feel entitled to their opinions, ideas and ability to communicate freely without censorship, and forum admins and site mgmt may feel that certain opinions and ideas expressed by certain users go against the db principles and may be counter productive to users who rely heavily on db advice.
I'm sad to hear that Puppy and Allen left the forums, I hope they return eventually, the place will not be the same without them. Allen A is a fixture in the infidelity forums, and well Puppy, one of the greatest users to grace these forums based on his advice and contributions and his pay it forward type attitude to this only db community, glad to call him my friend, his presence will be missed.
>>"Hi everyone, threads needed to be locked because folks are not locking their own threads or starting new ones when their threads get too big."
The question becomes, Why were threads over 100 locked in the infidelity forum & some that were much larger left alone in the other forums?
I think you can speak to Puppy and Allen A about this issue if they ever return, apparently the rework may have more to do with censoring certain posts and opinions rather than the forum performance. It's hard on both ends, users feel entitled to their opinions, ideas and ability to communicate freely without censorship, and forum admins and site mgmt may feel that certain opinions and ideas expressed by certain users go against the db principles and may be counter productive to users who rely heavily on db advice.
I'm sad to hear that Puppy and Allen left the forums, I hope they return eventually, the place will not be the same without them. Allen A is a fixture in the infidelity forums, and well Puppy, one of the greatest users to grace these forums based on his advice and contributions and his pay it forward type attitude to this only db community, glad to call him my friend, his presence will be missed.
Just kidding... because then performance would suck generally.