That can't be the case for thread creation, surely -- are you saying that every six months I can say "I still think a Movies thread is wrong, and we should shut it down"?
Not that I would...
Xander: Hey, Red. What you got in the basket, little girl? Buffy: Weapons.
Xander/Buffy ,'Help'
Voting Discussion: We're Screwing In Light Bulbs AIFG!
We open it up, we talks the talk, we votes, we shuts it down. This thread is to free up Bureaucracy for daily details as we hammer out the Big Issues towards a vote. Open only when a proposal has been made and seconded according to Buffista policy (Which we voted on!). If this thread is closed, hie thee to Bureaucracy instead!
John H - Mar 23, 2003 6:57:11 pm PST #319 of 10289
Jesse - Mar 23, 2003 6:59:53 pm PST #320 of 10289
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.
That can't be the case for thread creation, surely -- are you saying that every six months I can say "I still think a Movies thread is wrong, and we should shut it down"?
Oh, I think so. And really, I think it should be that way -- but then, I'm an anti-proliferationist. But think about it -- if we only ever open threads and never close them, we'd have a zillion threads eventually, right?
John H - Mar 23, 2003 7:07:03 pm PST #321 of 10289
That reminds me, people seem to think, correct me if I'm wrong, that having more threads is inherently a Bad Thing in terms of bandwidth and board stability.
It's not, I believe, and people are mistaken about this just because of what they believe caused the recent outage/database problems.
It's not, correct me if I'm wrong, ita, that creating more threads causes database problems, but simply that experience shows that having more threads means there's more traffic.
The outage wasn't caused by having too many threads, in other words, though it's logical to assume that our increases in traffic are due in part to having more threads.
Jesse - Mar 23, 2003 7:11:40 pm PST #322 of 10289
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.
My understanding is that the Recent Outage wasn't because of bandwidth at all, but I do believe bandwidth could become a problem at some future point, and I also believe that having more threads means we use more bandwidth -- see that Natter hasn't slowed down, even with new threads around.
None of which has anything to do with the matter at hand.
Go 6!
Deena - Mar 23, 2003 7:36:19 pm PST #323 of 10289
How are you me? You need to stop that. Only I can be me. ~Kara
I must have said that wrong. If something wins, no one agitates against it for X months. If something loses, no one agitates for it for X months. That's what I recall from bureacracy. Any decision can revisited after the moratorium.
clarifying because this is part of what made me lean toward 6.
billytea - Mar 23, 2003 7:38:30 pm PST #324 of 10289
You were a wrong baby who grew up wrong. The wrong kind of wrong. It's better you hear it from a friend.
So perhaps (it seems, to my mind) the ballot would most fairly look like this:
I actually think that would unfairly penalise 6 months. See, if we go with that option, 6 would need to get over half the primary votes to win. The other two options only need to win a preferential ballot.
§ ita § - Mar 23, 2003 7:59:47 pm PST #325 of 10289
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
It's not, correct me if I'm wrong, ita, that creating more threads causes database problems, but simply that experience shows that having more threads means there's more traffic.
Yes. The table of posts is what Hostrocket says is too large.
John H - Mar 23, 2003 8:07:52 pm PST #326 of 10289
I can't figure if you're correcting me because I'm wrong or saying I'm right.
There's one central table for all posts, which are just marked as belonging to a thread, rather than a table for each thread?
Betsy HP - Mar 23, 2003 8:14:21 pm PST #327 of 10289
If I only had a brain...
But didn't somebody run numbers that suggested that there was a strong causal correlation between numbers of threads and numbers of posts?
That is, you have 3 threads, you have 3000 posts; you have 4 threads, you don't have 3200 posts, you have 4000. (Numbers pulled out of Stephanie's frog-whistle.)
John H - Mar 23, 2003 8:22:28 pm PST #328 of 10289
didn't somebody run numbers that suggested that there was a strong causal correlation between numbers of threads and numbers of posts?
I kind of said that, though not in so many words. More threads does not dissipate the same number of posts over a wider area, it increases the overall number, yes.
But if there's a fundamental issue where more posts means more instability, then we have to deal with it sooner or later anyway because the number of posts in that table will always get bigger unless they're actively removed in some way.