Just as with everything else - e.g. the Reputation issue - people will get used to this. However, the dissemination of information is a very important point. Since there already was a precedent - Reputation - the lesson there should have been learned. It is not so much that those, including myself, cannot adapt to having smaller threads or finding alternative means. It is that there is a way of managing this process, and having already had one shot which went down like a lead balloon, this breakdown in communication should not have happened again. BS relies on both those who pay and those who contribute otherwise to make it a viable going concern. It is worth taking the time not to irritate posters, who after all also have the means to either remove their financial support, or remove their contribution altogether. Should more changes have to be made, it would be nice to think that we could discuss them in this "open forum" in advance of their being implemented.
How long must a thread be to become a problem? The discussion at vBulletin does not answer this question. It's claimed that threads over 2000 replies create a greater load than threads with 200 replies. No doubt, but the amount of extra load is not quantified. It's not claimed that threads over 2000 replies are necessarily problematic, but threads over 65000 replies may be, especially if there are several people viewing such threads at the same time, and repeatedly. A listing of threads in the last month in FFA shows only 12 threads over 1000 replies, only 16 over 500, and only 19 over 350. One thread is over 80,000, but only 5 are over 6,000 replies. The thread over 80,000 replies was started over 20 months ago, so it averages something less than 4000 posts per month. A limit of 500 replies does not seem reasonable, but a somewhat larger number probably is. Limiting threads to 2000 replies (and threads over 1000 replies to a week) does not seem unreasonable. There once was a time on BigSoccer when long threads would literally crash and burn. Threads would totally disappear, so people started limiting thread length on their own. Thankfully, things have greatly improved since those days.
We know that the longs threads are the last major problem affecting our servers. The original post stated this was a technical issue only.
You are correct that I implemented this poorly. It was discussed on the mods board for a week, but should have also been discussed in the customer service forums. The intention of this move is NOT to hamper NSA. I, personally (and I don't participate so perhaps I dont' know jack) don't see what the big deal is if after we hit 500 posts to start a new thread. This was done purely to improve site performance for you, me and everyone. This software was never designed to for a thread with 16,000 posts. Given that 99% of the threads have less than 100, let's say, that should be pretty clear. So, to recap (a) my implementation was poor (b) this wasn't targeted to any NSR stuff - we recognize our community is and should be whatever you want it to be and (c) this was done purely from a technical standpoint. We are obviously reading this whole discussion as it progresses and discussing it at length.
Isn't BSSM's 1000 page limit specifically because longer threads used to blow up? I concur with the others calling for a compromise. I could live with a limit of 100 or 200 pages (15ppp). That would be soooo much more workable than the current 23 page limit. Thanks for explanations, by the way.
What about voluntary adherence? Say if the community involved notices the thread is getting lengthy (though I say 1000 pages is way too long for tehcnical reasons) they voluntarily create a part 2 thread? Thinking aloud...
This has been brought up several times but I don't think it's been answered, so I'll try. The problem with, say, 350 or 500 is that it disrupts the flow of our "conversations" by shutting down a thread because that number can be reached fairly quickly. Somebody goes out to lunch or gets busy at work, by the time they're back a new thread has been started and they can't respond to posts without the annoying task of cutting and pasting in separate windows. As for voluntary adherence, I don't think too many of us would have a problem with the idea of you setting a limit, but rather that the limit you set was too arbitrary and didn't take into consideration how quickly some of these threads move. 2000 replies is 133.33 pages (using the default of 15). I think something around that number seems reasonable.
i think my FFA community is the biggest "thorn" in that issue. the BSSM people already voluntarily adhere to that rule themselves. we over at B@W are probably the one taxing the system the most as our thread is well over 80,000 posts. had there been some sort of statement about our thread getting too long and hampering service i can assure you we would have changed our ways.
Of course. And I think that's where this discussion is headed. Creating a new thread once the current version gets up to (taking Lanky's thought and rounding up) 150 pages shouldn't be an issue to anyone if it's ordained to everyone on the boards.
Having a voluntary (and reasonable) limit would also help out the mods. Poor Splarg would have to quit his day job just to police BSSM. I would totally support a 100-200 voluntary page limit. 23 pages is simply not enough.
And for those people who don't realize it then a mod can step in and lock long threads. Very few non-community threads (in which the posters might be blissfully unaware of the limit) get that huge and it shouldn't be hard for the mods to deal with them.
As mentioned above, why not set the page limit to 100 (or post count to 1,500) ? I think the above figures are fair, and allow for a reasonable degree of continuity, based on the fact that posters can follow that length of thread over a few days, rather than pick up a different thread each day on the new, current limit. EDIT: Pretty good discussion, pity we could not have had this first
Yeah! I'm voting for Fid as B@W El Presidente'. He rocks very hard!!! BTW being a Network Administrator I can sympathize with the whole network traffic issue. I guess we just have to put this to bed and move on. Insulting this Huss guy isn't going to get us anywhere because he could care less what anyone here thinks of him. He is still going to make money somehow. All i'm saying is that the line of communication with the BS community needs to be opened a little wider.
Have to agree with the idea of 100 pages or 1,500 posts. Something along those lines would allow us to work our magic and keep everyone happy. In fact if we could re-open those threads that were shut down, post a link to the new threads - that would be great.
Based on my knowledge of how this system works, 100 pages is still very very long. Especially when you consider how often the threads in question are being loaded / posted too. The modification to the Mandalay Bay metaphor is that a small group of mostly-VIP users are not only using the pool, but they are using such a disproportionate amount of the pool & staff that it is negatively impacting the experience of everyone else. Frankly, using a message board as a chat tool is extremely inefficient - note how BS crashes to a screetching halt every time there is a US game. I don't know why you BSSM guys don't set up an IRC channel or something. We'd all benefit.
The people affected are people who find this site important. We are moderators, we are Premium members, etc. If we were told beforehand that this is an issue and that we need to limit it to reasonable length, we would, voluntarily, because we want to. If we didn't like this site and want it to do well, we wouldn't pay 30 bucks.
Yes, indeed. As stated in my earlier post, we could all go elsewhere and take our USD 30 with us. The point is that we are trying to find a workable solution. This last generally being favourable to a community, which is what BS essentially is.
My point was, using vBulletin for chat (which is what these ultra-long threads are) is rather like using a cordless drill for an appendectomy. It'll get the job done, but it's hardly the best way. Again, the problem is that these ultra-long threads - utilized by a relatively small group of patrons - are causing very large problems for everyone. Nearly once a day, sometimes more, I get server busy messages. Huss comes in with a "keep 'em under 350 posts", and the reply? You guys want 1500! I think FFA has real value. I frequent a number of the off-topic boards, and they very much help build community. But a small number of VIP patrons are using the system in a way it wasn't designed to be used, to the detriment of everyone. This is a technical issue that will not be solved by throwing more money at the problem. At least, not the kind of money that can be raised via voluntary $30/yr memberships. So, again, here is my unofficial, unsactioned solution. Download mIRC, and start a chat channel. Post a link in a stickied FFA. Chat to your heart's content on a system designed to support real-time chat. Have a browser window open next to it so you can surf the rest of BS. You win, because you get a better system for chatting. You win because BigSoccer is faster and more responsive everywhere else. Everyone else wins because BigSoccer is faster and more responsive everywhere else. This is not an attack on BSSM folk and the like. This is a very real technical problem.
To you it's a better system for chatting. I hate chat rooms because there's no opportunity to think about what you're writing. It's impossible to settle into a rhythm because you're too busy trying to keep up with everything that's flying by.
I also don't understand why a relatively very small number of people on Bigsoccer would expect to be able to operate in a manner which is totally inconsistent with the rest of the community. I understand that the FFA forums have value in more ways then one, but these handfull of threads with a handfull of people are the only ones of their kind on bigsoccer. Certainly different boards on here are used for different purposes and moderated accordingly. But everwhere else on bigsoccer if something is running long, repetative or off topic the thread is either split or closed. I know that FFA has different standards and regulations but we're basically talking about accomidating 0.01% of the total bigsoccer community. Furthermore again, I dont really see how this post limit would hamper your slow chat communal spirit, and again I'll repeat that if your frienships are that important what's the difference of a few clicks of a mouse? I think Foos' suggestion of opening an IRC channel is a good one, scrolling through lines of text in order to back track within a conversation certainly seems a lot more desirable then having to click through dozens of pages in order to keep up with the flow of the conversation. It seems as though you guys are getting some kind of reconciliation now and I'm happy for those of you who enjoy the FFA threads, i'd just encourage 'you guys' to be reasonable about it.
It's called negotiation. I think everyone realizes there is a legitimate technical issue here. So we're trying to come up with a solution everyone can live with. Sachin
The community threads aren't chats. They're message boards. I've heard them called blog threads and while I don't think that's quite right, it's a better analogy than a chat room. Chats are real time. We understand that but surely there's some middle ground.
Whatever you want to call it you guys are acting on a real time basis. There's really no other threads on these boards that have posts like, 'okay going to lunch bbl.' Not to belabor anything cause hey what do I really care what's being posted and it is rather trivial, but that's how they're being used as a real time chat log.