Posts per page

Locutus · May 8, 2003, 09:56

I just changed something in my profile and the number of posts that is displayed on 1 page got reset from 50 to 'forum default'. Basically not a problem but when I want to change it back 50 is no longer an option, 40 is the max

Can you please allow 50 posts per page again -- at my uni we have one of the fastest networks in Europe so I can handle the load with ease. With 30 or 40 posts per page threads get impossibly long in terms of number of pages, making them less readable and only increasing total load times

In fact, I wouldn't mind 60, 75 or even 100 posts/page options either, but IMHO 50 should at the very least be there...

FrustratedPoet · May 8, 2003, 10:04

It was still an option a couple of days ago when I set mine to 50.

Locutus · May 8, 2003, 10:06

Hmm... In that case I suspect this may be related to the image attachment experiment

Please, Markos. I applaud you making the site modem-user friendlier, but there are those of us who have something better than a modem and we would like to be able to take advantage of that...

DaShi · May 8, 2003, 10:35

Yes, and the default was reduced to 15 from 20.

Nikolai · May 8, 2003, 12:22

I have 50 as my choice, but I guess I shouldn't visit that part of the control panel in a while...

Sad that all this anti-userfriendly changes is being made...

Hope it will change back soon!

Locutus · May 8, 2003, 16:14

DaShi,
I think that change has been in effect for a bit longer (or at least it has been in place for some time now for guests).

Nikolai,
Actually, I think you can, as long as you don't save your settings (and don't even try to visit the change avatar page as that will save your options automatically, even if you don't actually do anything there -- as I noticed today

).

Gramphos · May 8, 2003, 16:20

I'm also affected...

DarkCloud · May 8, 2003, 22:25

Hmm... I don't want to see 50 per page, but I support there being an option to SEE 50 as being possible!

Is there a specific bandwith reason for this Mark?

Just wondering?

H Tower · May 8, 2003, 23:43

/me makes a note not to visit the control panel for fear of losing one of his precious hig speed internet helper settings

Oppress the modem users! Not the High Speed Users!

asleepathewheel · May 9, 2003, 01:43

40, 50, is there that much of a difference?

but why not allow people to view 100?

Panag · May 9, 2003, 04:41

Quote:

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
40, 50, is there that much of a difference?

but why not allow people to view 100?

hi ,

loading / download time and bandwith , ....

have a nice day

Locutus · May 9, 2003, 04:54

40 or 50 makes a big difference. I don't have exact numbers of course but sizes of threads is a curved line: the bigger the number of posts, the fewer threads there are. And if the line were linear it wouldn't make a difference how many posts you have on one page, but exactly because it's curved, it does make a big difference: there are a lot more threads that have 40-50 posts than threads that have 50-60 posts. So at 40 p/p a lot of time page 2 has to be loaded when this would not be needed at 50 p/p.

Plus, 50 is a very nice round number (exactly 1/10th of the maximum limit) and a very natural point to break up a thread. Something which both the mathematician and the moderator in myself can appreciate

Jamski · May 9, 2003, 04:57

I have a fast connection, so I'm with Locutus on this one. %0 would be good. 100 too please. PLEASE

-Jam

Panag · May 9, 2003, 05:37

hi ,

good points , but what about the people with a regular slow connection , .....

since the pages load real fast for people with high speed terminals this should not be a problem for them , .....

think of the weak

have a nice day

Locutus · May 9, 2003, 05:45

Panag,
That's why it's an option: you can already choose for 10, 15 or 25 posts per page, so the 'weak' are already covered. The strong are currently barely covered at all (I hardly regard 40 proper coverage). An extra option or 2 wouldn't hurt the 'weak' at all but be a great help to the 'strong'...

Dauphin · May 9, 2003, 08:10

I have a fast connection, but the load time seems more dependent on Poly usage than my connection speed. So in that sense it can make sense not to have too many posts per page (so as to reduce Poly processing power).

Robert Plomp · May 9, 2003, 08:11

There IS a creative solution to set the posts per page on 100 / 1000 / whatever you want

But I'm not going to post that solution right here because Markos will ban me for 5 months if I do.
And after that Ming will explain to me for weeks that this is a private site and that the owners can do whatever they please and how I should respect that and how I disrespected their long and hard work for which they don't earn any money and stuff

Thus, I won't post that solution right here.

but my e-mail is robert@plompweb.net

Ming · May 9, 2003, 09:24

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberShy
And after that Ming will explain to me for weeks that this is a private site and that the owners can do whatever they please and how I should respect that and how I disrespected their long and hard work for which they don't earn any money and stuff

Yeah... I probably would...

Alex · May 9, 2003, 11:22

I use the forum default, it suits me fine. I never bothered to count how many posts are in a page, so you could include me in the group of those who can't be arsed with that.

Panag · May 9, 2003, 14:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Locutus
Panag,
That's why it's an option: you can already choose for 10, 15 or 25 posts per page, so the 'weak' are already covered. The strong are currently barely covered at all (I hardly regard 40 proper coverage). An extra option or 2 wouldn't hurt the 'weak' at all but be a great help to the 'strong'...

hi ,

yes , agreed , but what about download from the server , ....

if Mark or Dan did it they had a reason for it , ....

its not up to us to demand anything from them , afterall they own the site and they do almost anything that is possible to give us max use of it , .....

anyway , it could be this move that increased the page loading time , ......

have a nice day

orange · May 9, 2003, 16:09

ah, sorry Ming, didn't know this thread existed

They should definitely up the maximum to 50 or 100

Ming · May 9, 2003, 16:40

I would like to keep 50... and 100 would be even better

Robert Plomp · May 9, 2003, 18:00

Ming wants some 'creative solutions' as well

Oh, and don't tell Markos I told you,
he's eager to ban me.

And for everyone who uses my trick,
Markos has banned me once for 1 week because I used such a silly loophole for a good joke

That's why I didn't keep my number of replies on 100.
I'm scared to death for Markos the Merciless.

Ben Kenobi · May 9, 2003, 18:06

/me makes note to check user settings.

Markos, does it really save that much of a load?

Straybow · May 9, 2003, 19:30

I want 17¾ posts per page, 'coz it's my favorite number!

Locutus · May 9, 2003, 20:42

Quote:

Originally posted by orange
ah, sorry Ming, didn't know this thread existed

Yeah, you can rely on me to choose unobscure thread titles that nobody notices

Skanky Burns · May 9, 2003, 23:47

Cyber

What fun we had, though.

Robert Plomp · May 10, 2003, 04:08

Quote:

I want 17¾ posts per page, 'coz it's my favorite number!

It's all possible!!

Skanky: sure! I still laugh out loud how Markos banned us because he thought we had completely hacked his system

BustaMike · May 14, 2003, 17:58

At the Official ElderScrolls (Morrowind) Forums, there is a button after every multi page post (an all button) that displays the entire post. That would be a great thing to add.

badams52 · May 14, 2003, 18:11

fast machine, large screen, 100 is about right. esp if you have to mod a forum