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.

I think that there are also a lot of people like me-- I used to post a lot and read a lot. (was often one of the top two posters at WX). Now I have been forced to cut back on posting, but I don't actually read any less.

All sorts of options available. The Bronze dealt with server load by dumping data after 7 days, and Bronzers posted in a style like meara,

Polgara: I think Riley is such a tool, yo.

Leather Jacket: That may be true, but the thing is, Angel is totally gay.

Narrator: I'd like you if you weren't a stinkin' lawyer.

And so on, responding to several messages at once, with a self imposed flood control of four posts per hour. Works in linear, not so much in threaded.

Also, let's research who the chattiest people are and just ban them.

The Bronze dealt with server load by dumping data after 7 days

This actually opens a question for me.

On Table Talk (and a couple of other fora that work on the WX model), you have a 30-minute window to edit posts. Here, you can edit indefinitely -- I just went back to the start of this thread to check, and in theory I could edit posts from April 15.

Is there any database benefit to only allowing people to edit their posts for X amount of time? Or does that not make a difference with our software?

Quotas! it's all about quotas!

Also, let's research who the chattiest people are and just ban them.

Um. Sitting right here.