 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry if I'm a dunce, but aren't all embedded images and videos external to this site? Why do they affect this site's bandwidth situation? I can understand why they'd affect an individual user's loading times if that person has a slow connection, but not why it they affect fsm in any way.
It's an oooooold system with many limitations; very traffic-affected. The issue with long threads containing a lot of stuff being accessed simultaneously by multiple users was told to us by the techies who maintain the site.
|
|
|
|
|
|
To me this doesn't sound like a workable solution, more like a temporary fix? What would it take to get the board running smoothly again without such measures?
$$$
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kim Tong: Re: Will this help limit sheetmusicman's threads? The site is moving faster already!
Puleeeeeeeeeeze! Then what about chickenhearted's posts? (Thank you, Dana.) And those who ridiculed this post above (Senn555 and The Projectionist) are NOT helping things!
But sheetmusicman's threads are wonderful and are far more entertaining than what some members like to post here. And if the site needs more funds to function properly, then maybe we, me included, should chip in. This site has become an important factor in my life and DESERVES our support.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wouldn't it be easier for the board admin to simply LOCK the threads that are excessivly long??? not only that, they could start the continuation thread at the time they lock the original thread. Why put the responsibility on the members when admin can easily fix this on their own.
Also, not everyone will see this thread unless its constantly bumped.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry if I'm a dunce, but aren't all embedded images and videos external to this site? Why do they affect this site's bandwidth situation? I can understand why they'd affect an individual user's loading times if that person has a slow connection, but not why it they affect fsm in any way.
Mastage is exactly right. Images are not the problem. Whether you write a line of English text or a line of "Find this image on the Net" code, it's all the same to FSM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supposedly there's nothing the techies can do about the slowing, other than asking us to keep the threads short. I'M NOT BUYING IT! Asking us to limit our posts is like Walmart telling its customers to not buy so many things. There is a long list of things IT can do to fix the problem.
For example, the servers make a lot of unnecessary calculations every time we click “last post.” It has to count the total number of individual comments, divide that by the number of posts per page that each user desires to see, and then place the “remainder”-ing posts on a viewable page. (And actually, I bet their algorithm makes it more complicated than that.) But all they really need to do is set the number of comments per page, be it 10, 20, 30, etc. Then, when you switch pages, it simply loads another set page, rather than recalculating every time. Treat the thread as 60 pages of 20 comments, rather than 1,200 individual comments. (This will make the length of a thread inconsequential)
(Not that the techies aren't doing a great job, because they are; but thinking long term, how much can we as users really do to fix this?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How about an optional donation?
Some other sites do this and get results.
Maybe also us, as the users can reduce server requests and bandwith usage by not refreshing the site every few minutes in threads about upcoming releases of the newest Varese Sarabande CD Club titles. The user isn't entirely without guilt here, despite the WalMart/Wal-Mart example. A website isn't fully like a store. When FSM experiences high traffic, it can go down; when Wally world experiences high traffic, you stand in line longer. The Wal-Mart doesn't go down. The only thing that takes The Wal-Mart down is power loss, in which case they ask costumers to leave.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
