suggestion

[Builder]

40 is the best solution IMO.

[Narck]

I prefer 50

[Builder]

maybe coz it loads fast for YOU?

[Narck]

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by Builder on 10-19-2000 04:00 PM</font>
maybe coz it loads fast for YOU?
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>Actually, I only have a 56K connection

Here's a thought: open up threads in several windows, by the time you've opened the last one, the first one is done loading and ready to be read.
Whether a thread has 40 or 50 replies, if you have a slow connection you're going to have to wait a few seconds anyway, so I'd rather wait a little bit longer and then read the whole thing in one or 2 pages than not wait so long (but still have to wait!) and have to view it in 2 or 3 pages, which will require me to click on more pages, and wait at more times for a page to load.

[/rant]

[Legman]

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.

[Narck]

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by Legman on 10-19-2000 04:29 PM</font>
Why not set it to 150 then Narck? (don't answer that.)
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>...

[UltraSonix]

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...

[Narck]

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by UltraSonix on 10-20-2000 02:34 AM</font>
Didn't MarkG say somewhere that Mozilla (or something like that - could have been Netscape 6pr3) loaded this site's threads post-by-post?

<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>Yes, Netscape 6... I downloaded it for just that reason... and then it didn't work for me

[Urban Ranger]

Don't use NS6PR3, there's too much bloat in it. Use Mozilla Milestone 18.

[Legman]

*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>

[Builder]

MarkG, we're waiting...

[tonic]

For me it is my slow ISP rather than modem speed that slows down the page loading. I would certainly support the shorter 40 post limit and the more sensible length limit too, if we can persuade MarkG that it's doable.

[Builder]

It is doable!!!

[Narck]

Supposing the admins would be willing to change this, perhaps we should have a poll to find out how many ppl really want this.