 |
|
Builder
|
|
curently the maximum amount of post in every page is 50.
to me 40+ posts page take way too long time to load and probably other people have this problem too.
so the suggestion is to decrease it.
IMO 40 is the number that will allow normal reading without switching pages and also a relatively fast loading page to the ones who have slow modems.
your opinion?
------------------
That was another post in my long journey to PRINCE.
From now on -- > BuilderR = Builder
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Builder
|
|
you are right
the page loads long because of the amount of data in it but it will be much easier to change the number of posts in page than to determine them by the amount of the words/letters.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by mark13 on 09-28-2000 12:22 PM</font>
I would suggest that rather than the number of posts on each page being an issue, it should be the length of the page that denotes when to start a new one.
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>not doable....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lews Therìn
|
|
Dragonhold, England
Sep 2000
time: 05:13
|
|
Actually, it is doable, but the code needed to do it would probably take so long to run that the overall thread load time would be slower.
------------------
Thus spake the Dragon
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Murgatroyd
|
|
95 South, 113 West
Feb 2000
time: 21:13
|
|
If this were implemented, would the thread length limit be 3 pages, or 150 (160?) posts?
Murgatroyd
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Builder
|
|
well, I dont really understand why ming closes 4 pages threads.
but there is no big difference between 150 and 160.
or even 200 if you wanna be generous.
------------------
That was another post in my long journey to KING.
"Eat right, exercise daily, live clean, die anyway."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Murgatroyd
|
|
95 South, 113 West
Feb 2000
time: 21:13
|
|
The reason for the length limit on threads is simple: Long threads (the 29-page Fourth Coffee Shop being an extreme example) slowed down the forum scripts. I don't particularly like the limit, but I understand the necessity. I was wondering whether the number of pages or the number of posts was the deciding factor.
Murgatroyd
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Builder
|
|
I wonder why the chose 4 pages.
is there a difference between 4 and 5 or 6,7,8 pages.
I understand that 29, and IMO more then 10 pages will slow down the script, but why the chose 4 and not 5 for example?
------------------
That was another post in my long journey to KING.
"Eat right, exercise daily, live clean, die anyway."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
On the original question of Builder's suggestion:
I would support a limit of 40 posts per page instead of 50. The reason for this is partly that until recently I had immense problems of loading longer threads at work, due to the firewall maintining a 50 kb limit on downloads. That has been resolved now, but the fact remains that I've felt how frustrating it is not being able to load threads with more than 30-35 replies.
40 posts instead of 50 seems like a reasonable compromize, don't you think?
I think MarkG only commented on the question of limiting the length of the page, not on the question of a 40 post limit instead of 50. Am I right Mark?
Edit: Typo
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Legman (edited October 19, 2000).]</font>
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Builder
|
|
40 is the best solution IMO.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Builder
|
|
maybe coz it loads fast for YOU?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Why not set it to 150 then Narck? (don't answer that.)
40 posts per page seems like a reasonable number. Not too far from the present 50 posts per page - yet still an act of obligingness to those not fortunate enough to have a fast connection.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Builder
|
|
56K???
wow, youre lucky!
my poor 33K modem works really hard for those 50 posts threads.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
UltraSonix
|
|
Melbourne, Australia
May 2000
time: 15:13
|
|
Didn't MarkG say somewhere that Mozilla (or something like that - could have been Netscape 6pr3) loaded this site's threads post-by-post?
------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
*Bump*
We still haven't had a reply from the admins on the question of setting the limit of replies per page lower than the current 50. MarkG's reply only dealt with the question of limiting the length of the page.
I say go with 40 replies per page instead of 50. Will make it much easier for people with slow connections or firewalls - and wouldn't be too much of a burden for the rest of us, IMO.
Edit: Typo as usual 
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Legman (edited October 31, 2000).]</font>
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:13.
Apolyton Time is 00:13. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-09-2000 09:14
|