Have we gotten any feedback from our host (regarding how much (whatever it is we were over-using)? Are we doing better?

There hasn't been any feedback that I'm aware of. Right now, I think Kristen is still trying to work out the remaining issues from the server switch.

Traffic isn't the issue, but in any case thread consolidation will only lower traffic.

I know. It's more a feeling that, while we're getting a read on how well the fixes have worked, we should change as little as possible.

There hasn't been any feedback that I'm aware of. Right now, I think Kristen is still trying to work out the remaining issues from the server switch.

When that's settled, maybe we should ask them. With HostSuckIt, we just went along like everything was fine, because it felt fine, and it wasn't fine and they'd suspend us. Maybe we need an ongoing discussion with our new host, until we know we're operating at a good level for our current server situation, or until it becomes plain we need our own. I think fundraising is always good. We could start the requests now, anyhow, and note we may need a dedicated server. But we should probably find out how we're doing, and not assume it's okay because it's seemed okay.

I know this is a stupid question, but oh well:

If traffic is not the problem, what is? Is there, in fact, a technical argument against thread proliferation or reorganization? I feel like we (the non-techy we) have sort of gotten the idea that we can't have too many threads because the increased post volume will crash the database; is this the case, or not?

Thanks.

(And I disagree that we should put off reorgs until October, barring a technical reason to do so. It makes more sense to me to figure it out during the summer, before we start dealing with the start-of-season post swell. Besides, we're most likely talking about a net loss of threads, not a net gain.)

When that's settled, maybe we should ask them.

We've already been discussing this issue. Unfortunately, it had to be temporarily shelved by post-move issues on both sides of the equations.

When I have some answers, I will posting in Board.

Kristen - I know you're working your tushie off, and want that stated for the record. I hope that didn't come off like I think you're a slacker. To the contrary, I just want to make sure we're thinking of things, and not leaving it all up to you, to cross every t and dot every i.

(typo edit)

That's not what I proposed. First of all, i didn't propose anything.

Uhhh... I didn't say you did....

You wrote:

We have - is it 13? - episodes. We have 3 threads devoted to those 13? episodes.

I took that (and your subsequent paragraphs) to imply that you thought 3 threads was too many. Apologies if I misunderstood.

That's not what I proposed. First of all, i didn't propose anything.

Uhhh... I didn't say you did....

I was correcting myself - sorry that didn't come through. I said 'that's not what I proposed' and then I realized I had made a deal over not-proposing, and so I was ragging on myself there.

I took that (and your subsequent paragraphs) to imply that you thought 3 threads was too many. Apologies if I misunderstood.

Well, I do. I do think the "quotables" should all be combined, and so I do think we can do with 2 FF threads, rather than three. The "FF Spoilers" name just itches me, and I see potential trouble, if/when there ever are movie spoilers, because not all the UK people are going to want to read those, but apparently, that's just me. So I'll be shutting up about it now.

I understand the movie spoiler concern. However, I suspect that by the time there are any movie spoilers to share, the DVDs will have been out for some time so that the only spoilers left will be movie-related ones.

If traffic is not the problem, what is? Is there, in fact, a technical argument against thread proliferation or reorganization? I feel like we (the non-techy we) have sort of gotten the idea that we can't have too many threads because the increased post volume will crash the database; is this the case, or not?

It appears that the problem is not traffic, per se, but server load. Apparently we have plenty of bandwidth, which means we wouldn't be having any problems if our pages were static html pages. The problem is that almost all of our pages make calls to the database where the posts are stored. It's the calls to the database that were swamping the system, especially since it seems the connections weren't closing properly. Increasing the number of posts also increases the number of calls to the database.

I'm not sure that the number of threads is the problem, but rather the increase in posting that generally accompanies new threads.