suggestion

[Guest]

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.

[MarkG]

<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 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="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>not doable....

[mark13]

Maybe you could change it for each individual forum. For instance, in the MP forums you could increase it, as the forum is likely to contain more short posts, and in the strategy forum you might decrease it, for the opposite reason.

Just a thought.......

P.S. Wow, quoted by MarkG, it is an honour indeed......

[Builder]

lol

a true honor

[mark13]

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. The reason for this is that, yes, 50 long posts can take a while to load, but OTOH, if they are 50 one-sentence posts, it would take practically no time at all.

I don't know of the practicality of this, but surely it would be better??

[Lews Therìn]

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

[MidKnight Lament]

I know this has been mentioned before and came under a lot of criticism, but I think it's a pretty good idea. Forty posts per page is probably about right.

------------------
- MKL
"I'm OK. How are you? Thanks for asking, thanks for asking."
Shameless Plug: http://www.poetic-license.org

[Murgatroyd]

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]

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."

[Empress]

oh yeah, the old coffee shop days were horrible to post in

[mark13]

I think that, as well as slowing it down, they also have a tendency to crash (remember the 20-odd-page coffee shop that succumbed to the curse?).

I think 4 pages is about right - starting a second thread is reasonable after that - come on, it's hardly a lot of trouble, is it? IMHO, Mark and Dan are doing a sterling job on these forums as it is.

[Legman]

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>