I don't want to make you do any more work than you're already doing, Kristen. I really just thought if we made any code changes around the time the problems started, we could look there first.

I trust and believe you. I hope this didn't come across any other way.

The piece I'm not understanding is how more threads is a problem, but more users aren't -- especially since on most fora, anyone who feels like it can add a thread. Or is it that more users are also a problem, but a problem that has no easy solution?

Edited to add: I also don't want to sound like I'm quizzing Kristen or in any way don't respect what she's saying. I just need to make sure I understand what's going on.

Cindy, imagine there was just one thread. We'd see a lot of Hec posts but only as many as would be socially acceptable on a board with just one thread. Now add two more threads. Hec would continue to post the maximum socially acceptable number which would increase his total posts by nearly three. Now add 10 more threads. That's where the law of diminishing returns kicks in, and Hec posts less in each thread, albeit more in total. So your point is that Hec is not going to post much more if you add a 13th or 23rd thread. True.

But what about the other 200 semi-active posters? As more thread catch their fancy they will post more. So Hec's posts may not increase, but poster 994 who so far only posts in Firefly discovers the tv thread and suddenly his posts double. Now multiply poster 994 by 100 or so. And that's the problem.

All names in the preceding post are fictional. Any similarity to actual Buffista names is purely coincidental.

I really just thought if we made any code changes around the time the problems started, we could look there first.

No, Cindy, I should have mentioned that I also thought that was a good idea. I'm currently rereading Board from the end of last year to see what we implemented that could have affected the situation. Part of the problem is that HR was less than communicative. They didn't tell us that we were a long-standing problem until waaaay after they considered us a long-standing problem. It makes it harder to pinpoint when, if ever, we were okay on resource usage.

Or is it that more users are also a problem, but a problem that has no easy solution?

Yes, this. More users are certainly a problem. But that's not one that we can, or I think would want to, solve. [You! UserID1002, get outta the water!] As a community grows, you're going to get bigger. I think the problem was that we added a lot of threads prior to the boom in our membership numbers. So we had a bunch of threads. And then a lot of new people that we weren't expecting showed up to post in them. Wackiness ensues.

So your point is that Hec is not going to post much more if you add a 13th or 23rd thread.

Hec has a job now, hence the less posting.

Hec has a job now, hence the less posting.

A likely story, job boy.

Of the 1000 registered users, 180 posted in the first 10 days of August. This doesn't indicate how many lurked, and how many unregistered posters read.

That could be a lot of folk.

But I don't have numbers to hand right now.

Does reading a thread use up as many resources as posting?

What about downloading an archived file? Is that the best way to read old threads?

Hec has a job now, hence the less posting.

No, even before, I noticed less of you where I was posting. I thought it was because my Lady Speedstick doesn't always sell the pink cap any more.

But what about the other 200 semi-active posters? As more thread catch their fancy they will post more. So Hec's posts may not increase, but poster 994 who so far only posts in Firefly discovers the tv thread and suddenly his posts double. Now multiply poster 994 by 100 or so. And that's the problem.

Yes, and that's the part I understand. Except you're not accounting for threads that petered out (holiday), shows that ended (Firefly wasn't being aired to anyone for a while, during our troubles - and that had been a very active thread), trends that slowed (LotR has slowed way the hell down) etc. I understand there's an overall gain, but for instance, I think the fact that Natter has been even more like a crack crazed beast than ever, and that Bitches is trying to copy it (and hey - I post in those threads) is probably as responsible as either the music or movies threads.

Yes, this. More users are certainly a problem. But that's not one that we can, or I think would want to, solve. [You! UserID1002, get outta the water!] As a community grows, you're going to get bigger. I think the problem was that we added a lot of threads prior to the boom in our membership numbers. So we had a bunch of threads. And then a lot of new people that we weren't expecting showed up to post in them. Wackiness ensues.

Is there a bigger package deal with our current host - such that we'd be allowed more my sql connections, but not have to go the dedicated server route?

I still think we should fix, preen, and trim where we can. I'm just wondering if there's another option in the middle - the server hog plan, or something?

I think the fact that Natter has been even more like a crack crazed beast than ever, and that Bitches is trying to copy it

Almost every time I check after being away for a while, there are more new posts in Bitches than in Natter (by between 10 and 50). This has been going on since about the 4th of July.

Bitches. It's the new Natter.