Close threads at 500 posts...

Page 1 of 1 (12 items)
This post has 11 Replies | 1 Follower

Posts 44
Sam Shaw | Forum Activity | Posted: Sat, Jan 2 2010 2:42 PM

...if you don't want your servers taxed.

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jan 2 2010 3:50 PM

Sam Shaw:

...if you don't want your servers taxed.

Does anyone know anything about this?  Is it "taxed" as in "overworked" or "taxed" as in "Obama is after your money"?

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 5337
Kevin Becker | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jan 2 2010 4:27 PM

It's very rare when a thread gets that long. In fact the only one I can think of is the Hijack thread. Even the flamiest (is that a word?) of threads tend to peter out well before 500 posts. Most don't make it over 10 only the select few make it over 50.

Posts 18857
Rosie Perera | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jan 2 2010 6:05 PM

Kevin Becker:

It's very rare when a thread gets that long. In fact the only one I can think of is the Hijack thread. Even the flamiest (is that a word?) of threads tend to peter out well before 500 posts. Most don't make it over 10 only the select few make it over 50.

I think this is a cheap shot at the Hijack thread. I'm absolutely certain it's the only one that has gone beyond 500, and only just. Sam, maybe you just want that thread to stop showing up in your Unread topics list. Skip over it if you're getting tired of it. It gives those of us who post there a bit of a release when there are things to be frustrated about, like this weekend when SR-2 seems to be causing problems. Some of us have already requested that there be a feature added to the forum where we could mark a particular thread as "Ignore" and it would never show up as Unread for us again. I don't see that coming in the near future, though.

I seriously don't think that the number of posts on one thread taxes the servers any more than the sheer volume of posts that the whole set of Forums has been getting lately, which is tremendous. Hard for anyone to keep up with. That would be more my concern than taxing the servers, unless by servers you are referring to those Logos servant-employees who have been bending over backwards for us.

Incidentally, I think the servers probably are buckling under the weight of so much activity -- forum posting and downloading updates and all (I've seen a couple of blips when I got an error message just trying to access the forum today). From my understanding, there have been a lot of new customers since Logos 4 was released; that's good news for the company, but of course it will mean they'll have to stay on top of scaling up their server capacity to be able to handle all the additional load.

Posts 5337
Kevin Becker | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jan 2 2010 6:50 PM

Rosie Perera:
I think this is a cheap shot at the Hijack thread.

My comment? It wasn't intended as one. Or, did you mean Sam's suggestion?

Posts 3683
BillS | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jan 2 2010 7:42 PM

Rosie Perera:
Hijack thread

On that thread, I'd be fine if it all but the last few pages got deleted... I'm just sayin'...

Grace & Peace,
Bill


Asus GF63 8RD, I-7 8850H, 32GB RAM, 1TB SSD, 2TB HDD, NVIDIA GTX 1050Max
Samsung S9+, 64GB
Fire 10HD 64GB 7th Gen

Posts 44
Sam Shaw | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jan 2 2010 9:11 PM

Really, it's not because of the content of that topic. It's just that, after seeing how far it's gone, it reminded me that most message board setups have a limit for a good reason. Logos should follow suit and mature their message boards by this next step.

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jan 2 2010 9:36 PM

Sam Shaw:

Really, it's not because of the content of that topic. It's just that, after seeing how far it's gone, it reminded me that most message board setups have a limit for a good reason. Logos should follow suit and mature their message boards by this next step.

So your position is that everyone else is doing it so Logos should do the same?  I'll simply remind you of my mother's question when I said, "But everyone else is doing it !" which was "If everyone else jumped of a bridge, would you also?"

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 18857
Rosie Perera | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jan 2 2010 9:47 PM

Kevin Becker:

Rosie Perera:
I think this is a cheap shot at the Hijack thread.

My comment? It wasn't intended as one. Or, did you mean Sam's suggestion?

 

I meant Sam's comment; I quoted the wrong message by mistake -- or rather I was referring in my answer to the same thing you were replying to and thought that made sense at the time, didn't realize you might take my reply as referring to your comment. Ooops! Embarrassed

Bill Stonebraker:

Rosie Perera:
Hijack thread

On that thread, I'd be fine if it all but the last few pages got deleted... I'm just sayin'...

I'd actually be quite fine with the middle chunk of pages being deleted. (The opening one needs to remain to explain what the whole thing is about.) It would make it easier to get to the end to find the latest stuff. But seriously, I would get over it if that thread disappeared completely or was locked and we had to start acting like grown-ups again. I might start hijacking another thread to say "boo hoo" but I'd get over it. Honest, I would. Crying

Posts 44
Sam Shaw | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jan 2 2010 10:56 PM

George Somsel:

So your position is that everyone else is doing it so Logos should do the same?

Nope. My position is that "most message board setups have a limit for a good reason", which is "if [they] don't want [their] servers taxed".

Posts 10676
Forum MVP
Jack Caviness | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 4 2010 3:16 AM

Sam Shaw:
My position is that "most message board setups have a limit for a good reason", which is "if [they] don't want [their] servers taxed".

Do you really believe that the one thread with over 500 posts is more of a burden than the other 8,371 threads?

Posts 8602
TCBlack | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 4 2010 3:22 AM

Sam Shaw:

Really, it's not because of the content of that topic. It's just that, after seeing how far it's gone, it reminded me that most message board setups have a limit for a good reason. Logos should follow suit and mature their message boards by this next step.

Funny...

I've participated in several very busy forums the United Devices forums (whatever they were called under IBM before they became UD) come immediately to mind.  They never limited the threads and dozens of pages per post never hampered anything.  They aren't the only such forum with no limits I've been on, but they are the first to come to mind.

I don't think it taxes the server any more than having fifteen posts each titled "the new hijack thread #7".  It's a series of database searches equivalent to "find  thread #x starting at post #y and ending at post #z".

Truth Is Still Truth Even if You Don't Believe It

Check the Wiki

Warning: Sarcasm is my love language. I may inadvertently express my love to you.

Page 1 of 1 (12 items) | RSS