Hokay. Implemented some of Jon's changes -- you are now informed (via a server-side count) that your tag has been amputated. Also put in the screen so one can change the number of posts displayed.
Buckle up, kids! Daddy's puttin' the hammer down.
Spike ,'Touched'
Buffistas Building a Better Board
Do you have problems, concerns or recommendations about the technical side of the Phoenix? Air them here. Compliments also welcome.
§ ita § - Dec 07, 2002 1:41:00 pm PST #1899 of 10000
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
bon bon - Dec 07, 2002 1:43:58 pm PST #1900 of 10000
It's five thousand for kissing, ten thousand for snuggling... End of list.
Oooh, spanks!
Jessica - Dec 07, 2002 1:57:33 pm PST #1901 of 10000
And then Ortus came and said "It's Ortin' time" and they all Orted off into the sunset
ita, since we're worried about bandwidth issues, which is preferable -- more posts/page or fewer?
John H - Dec 07, 2002 2:09:56 pm PST #1902 of 10000
It won't make any difference to the bandwidth if you read 100 posts in ten lots of ten or five lots of twenty -- it'll just make the pages larger for your browser.
brenda m - Dec 07, 2002 2:11:45 pm PST #1903 of 10000
If you're going through hell/keep on going/don't slow down/keep your fear from showing/you might be gone/'fore the devil even knows you're there
Really? I would have thought that 10 separate hits would require more. But I know nothing about this.
John H - Dec 07, 2002 2:19:44 pm PST #1904 of 10000
OK I take it all back. I answered without thinking.
I'd delete my post, but that would be cheating.
The answer to Jessica's question is, less bandwidth gets used up if you have more posts to a page.
This is because the page consists of both posts and furniture, nav, forms, graphics and whatever.
So five lots of twenty is five lots of furniture and ten lots of ten is ten lots of furniture.
If you only downloaded the posts, it would all be equal.
Jessica - Dec 07, 2002 2:26:37 pm PST #1905 of 10000
And then Ortus came and said "It's Ortin' time" and they all Orted off into the sunset
less bandwidth gets used up if you have more posts to a page.
Excellent.
John H - Dec 07, 2002 2:32:55 pm PST #1906 of 10000
As my penance, I did the maths -- here's a randomly chosen full page of Natter (as in, not at the end yet, somewhere in the middle):
Total Posts Furniture 18.3 Kb 8.7 Kb 9.6 Kb
So that page, which has, let me see, ten posts, is about 47% content and 53% furniture.
If it had twenty posts, let's just make up a figure:
Total Posts Furniture 27 Kb 17.4 Kb 9.6 Kb
it would be 64% content. Someone check my calculations?
This is ignoring images, which is OK because they're few, and they're cached.
[edit because numbers are meaningless if you don't know what they're enumerating...]
DXMachina - Dec 07, 2002 2:40:30 pm PST #1907 of 10000
You always do this. We get tipsy, and you take advantage of my love of the scientific method.
Okay, this has got to be the coolest feature EVER!!!! Because, like, there doesn't seem to be a limit to the number of posts that can be displayed. It's like an automatic threadsucker!!!
Okay, taking a breath...
The bandwidth downside is that if you set the number of posts fairly high, and click onto a thread that you've already read to the end, you'll get the last however many posts you set instead of just the last ten. I don't see that as much of a problem though, and it is a great feature for folks trying to catch up.
DXMachina - Dec 07, 2002 2:48:39 pm PST #1908 of 10000
You always do this. We get tipsy, and you take advantage of my love of the scientific method.
Yup, I was just able to threadsuck Natter 1. Cool.
Don't do this at home, kids...