Thanks for the posts per page. I'm a happy girl.
Hey! What a surprise! Hostile 17! Can I get you a drink, Hostile 17?
Xander ,'Dirty Girls'
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.
Kat - Dec 07, 2002 2:56:24 pm PST #1910 of 10000
"I keep to a strict diet of ill-advised enthusiasm and heartfelt regret." Leigh Bardugo
DXMachina - Dec 07, 2002 3:02:16 pm PST #1911 of 10000
You always do this. We get tipsy, and you take advantage of my love of the scientific method.
Yup, we can now give more precise instructions for the John H. natter diet. Set the number of posts displayed in your profile to fifty (50), or any other convenient quantity, go to the natter thread, and then click 'Recent'. Voila! The last fifty posts in one convenient place.
John H - Dec 07, 2002 3:08:55 pm PST #1912 of 10000
Oooh, I don't think that's a good idea. Not everyone wants to download a page that size, or have all their threads read in 50-post chunks.
I'm still voting for the JHND to be added as a feature one day.
A box that says:
Skip to [NUMBER] from the end
or
I want to read the last [NUMBER] posts
or something.
DXMachina - Dec 07, 2002 3:13:03 pm PST #1913 of 10000
You always do this. We get tipsy, and you take advantage of my love of the scientific method.
You can always change it back to a more manageable number when you've caught up. I had mine set to 10100 to try the threadsuck, but I changed it right back. And fifty at a time on a cable modem seems pretty quick, especially compared to 5 x 10.
edit: That said, I like your idea, too. Should be doable, no?
Kat - Dec 07, 2002 3:14:17 pm PST #1914 of 10000
"I keep to a strict diet of ill-advised enthusiasm and heartfelt regret." Leigh Bardugo
I'm on a slow dial up and I personally prefer 50 at a time (which is what I'm set to now) rather than 10. It does take less time in my head because it doesn't have to reload everything else. Plus if I hate, I can change it.
John H - Dec 07, 2002 3:15:13 pm PST #1915 of 10000
My figures give a value of roughly 0.8K per post, and an overhead of roughly 10K per page, so a fifty-post page would be the other side of 50K, which isn't great, but still pretty cool.
Kat - Dec 07, 2002 3:17:25 pm PST #1916 of 10000
"I keep to a strict diet of ill-advised enthusiasm and heartfelt regret." Leigh Bardugo
Even at 50K it loads much faster in the long term v the short term.
And, this increases my scrollability which is important to facilitate my skimmability.
DXMachina - Dec 07, 2002 3:18:03 pm PST #1917 of 10000
You always do this. We get tipsy, and you take advantage of my love of the scientific method.
That's about right. Natter 1 came in at 9058 KB for 10024 posts.
DXMachina - Dec 07, 2002 3:20:46 pm PST #1918 of 10000
You always do this. We get tipsy, and you take advantage of my love of the scientific method.
And, this increases my scrollability which is important to facilitate my skimmability.
Yup, very important when mearaing, because it means less bandwidth used when going back, given that php always recreates the page, even when using the back button.
John H - Dec 07, 2002 3:24:09 pm PST #1919 of 10000
given that php always recreates the page, even when using the back button
Minor nitpick, -- not for everyone. We had a discussion about this a while ago when the point was about the post-box-content disappearing.
It's an issue to do with a combination of browser, ISP and cache(s), and I don't think we ever quite got to the bottom of it.